1. A complaint alleging rape and cheating was filed following a failed relationship, wherein the complainant discovered that her partner was already married shortly after their union. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 1311
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Santhosh Kumar N.P. – Appellant
Versus
State-Station House Officer, Kadirur Police, Tellicherry, Kannur District & Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 5137-5138 of 2026 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.10173-10174 of 2025)
Decided On : 30-10-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Basant R, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manu Krishnan G- 3005, AOR Mr. K Suresh Babu, Adv. Mr. Raunak Arora, Adv. Mr. Akash Rajeev, Adv. Mr. Naman Vashishtha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Shinoj K.Narayanan, Adv. Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR Ms. Niveditha R Menon, Adv. Ms. Ambika Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Verma, Adv. Mr. Tarun Kumar, Adv. Mr. Christy J Philip Vettickattu, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Basant R, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manu Krishnan G- 3005, AOR Mr. K Suresh Babu, Adv. Mr. Raunak Arora, Adv. Mr. Akash Rajeev, Adv. Mr. Naman Vashishtha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Shinoj K.Narayanan, Adv. Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR Ms. Niveditha R Menon, Adv. Ms. Ambika Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Verma, Adv. Mr. Tarun Kumar, Adv. Mr. Christy J Philip Vettickattu, Adv.
Consensual relationships between adults cannot be retrospectively criminalized as rape if the party continued the relationship after discovering a partner's prior marriage. Discharge is warranted under Section 227 CrPC if the material fails to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376(2)(n), 420, 493, 494 and 495 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 227 - Discharge - Standard for framing charges - Judge possesses the power to sift and weigh evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case is made out - If two views are possible and evidence gives rise to suspicion but not grave suspicion, the judge is empowered to discharge the accused (Paras 26, 27, 28).
(B) IPC - Section 376 - Rape - Consent under misconception of fact - Retrospective criminalization of failed relationships - Where adults engage in a consensual relationship that later sours, the relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as rape - If a partner continues the relationship after becoming aware of the other's prior marital status, the consent for sexual acts is not vitiated by deception - Criminal law must not be turned into a tool of vengeance for emotional discord between consenting adults (Paras 42, 43, 45, 47).
(C) IPC - Section 420 - Cheating - Essential ingredients - Requires that deceit must dishonestly induce the person to deliver property or make/alter/destroy a valuable security - Allegation of deception regarding matrimonial status without delivery of property or modification of valuable security does not attract this section (Paras 49, 50, 51).
(D) IPC - Sections 493, 494 and 495 - Deceitful cohabitation and Bigamy - Cohabitation continued after knowledge of first marriage negates the element of deceit required under Section 493 - Absence of conclusive evidence of a valid marriage ceremony and the knowledge of a prior marriage prevents the establishment of a prima facie case for bigamy under Sections 494 and 495 (Paras 52, 53, 56).
Facts of the case:
The appellant and respondent were in a personal relationship and cohabited for several years after a purported temple marriage, based on the appellant's representation that he was a bachelor. The respondent later discovered the appellant was already married with children. Following the end of the relationship and the dismissal of proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, the respondent filed a criminal complaint alleging rape, cheating, and bigamy. The Trial Court and High Court refused to discharge the appellant, holding that there was a prima facie case based on consent obtained via misconception of fact.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondent continued to cohabit with the appellant for years even after being informed of his previous marriage, indicating a consensual relationship. There was no evidence of property delivery to support cheating charges, nor sufficient evidence of a legally valid second marriage to support bigamy charges.
Issues: Whether the allegations contained in the FIR and chargesheet disclosed sufficient material to warrant the continuance of criminal proceedings or if the accused was liable to be discharged under Section 227 of the CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the continued cohabitation after knowledge of the prior marriage established the relationship as consensual, thereby negating the charge of rape under Section 376(2)(n). It emphasized that failed consensual relationships should not be retrospectively criminalized. Since no property was delivered and no valid second marriage was proven, the ingredients of Sections 420, 493, 494, and 495 were not satisfied.
Result: Appeals allowed; appellant discharged.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contended the relationship was consensual and proceedings were an abuse of law, while the respondent argued the relationship was based on deception regarding the appellant's marital status. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
3. The court observed that the relationship was consensual, the complainant was aware of the appellant's previous marriage, and the ingredients of the alleged criminal offences were not met. (Para 31 , 32 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 )
4. Consensual relationships cannot be retrospectively criminalized as rape under Section 376 IPC merely because the relationship has soured or the accused withdraws from the commitment. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 48 )
5. The High Court order and previous trial court orders were set aside, and the appellant was discharged from all charges. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 )
6. Can a consensual sexual relationship be converted into a charge of rape upon its termination?
No. The court held that failed relationships cannot be retrospectively criminalized as rape under Section 376 IPC. Such provisions are intended for genuine sexual violence and coercion, not for situations where an adult freely entered a relationship that later soured. (Para 37 , 39 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 )
7. What is the threshold for a Court to exercise its power of discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC?
The court must perform a limited examination of the material on record to determine if there is a prima facie case. If the materials reflect that the commission of an offense is not probable, the court is justified in discharging the accused rather than framing charges. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
8. Does continued cohabitation after learning of a partner's prior marriage negate a charge under Section 493 IPC?
Yes. Section 493 requires that a woman be deceitfully induced to believe she is lawfully married to a man who is unmarried. Acquiring knowledge of a prior marriage and continuing to cohabit demonstrates, prima facie, the absence of such deceitful inducement. (Para 52 , 53 , 56 )
JUDGMENT :
NAGARATHNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. These criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellant assailing the impugned common order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the High Court of Kerala dismissing Cr. R.P. No.295/2015 and Crl. M.C. No.1221/2015.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No.2 herein was earlier married to one Divakaran. After they were divorced, respondent No.2 became acquainted with the appellant herein and the acquaintance gradually matured into a personal relationship. It is the case of respondent No.2 that appellant herein represented himself to be a bachelor and offered to marry her. In the year 1996, appellant and respondent No.2 travelled to Mysuru, where they were married at a temple. They also resided together as a married couple until the year 2003 and on the basis of the presumption of a validly subsisting marriage, respondent No.2 consented to sexual acts with the appellant on a multitude of occasions.
4. Thereafter, alleging neglect, respondent No.2 filed M.C. No.3/2008 (re-registered as M.C. No.31/2009) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter, “DV Act”) seeking arrangement of an alternate accommodation for her along with certain sums of money towards various expenses. In the proceedings before the Magistrate, appellant herein disclosed that he was earlier married with two children and that on 31.08.2009, the aforesaid complaint came to be dismissed. The criminal appeal filed against the said order of dismissal also came to be dismissed.
5. Pursuant to this, respondent No.2 filed a private complaint before the Additional Chief Magistrate, Thalassery under Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”) against the appellant, alleging that she had been deceived by the appellant who had claimed to be a bachelor and had married her and that she had consented to physical relationship on the basis of the said presumption (when he was in fact already married to someone else). On 04.04.2011, the said complaint came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. A revision petition filed against the said order of dismissal is pending.
6. Respondent No.2 proceeded to file a second private complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery under Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 of the IPC, containing similar allegations as raised in the earlier complaint. The said second complaint was referred to the Kadirur Police under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, “CrPC”).
7. On receipt of the said complaint, FIR bearing No.503/2011 came to be registered at Kadirur Police Station, Thalassery against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 of the IPC.
8. Feeling aggrieved, appellant filed Crl. M.C. No.5051/2013 before the Kerala High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR No.503/2011 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. On 19.11.2013, the said petition came to be disposed of by a Single Judge of the High Court, with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the discharge application filed by the appellant expeditiously.
9. On 09.01.2015, by way of a common order, a discharge petition preferred before the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Thalassery along with an application challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court by the appellant came to be dismissed on the basis of the existence of a prima facie case and sufficient materials to substantiate the allegations made against the appellant. An application filed by the appellant seeking further investigation into the complaint filed by respondent No.2 also came to be dismissed.
10. Appellant preferred Crl. R.P. No.295/2015 against the aforesaid common order dated 09.01.2015 and Crl. M.C No.1221/2015 against the order of dismissal of the application seek
