Knowledge of Partner's Subsisting Marriage Defeats 'Rape on False Promise' Claim (S.376 IPC) If Relationship Consensual: Supreme Court - 2025-04-07

Supreme Court Discharges Former Judge, Rules Consensual Sex Despite Marriage Promise Not Rape If Partner's Marital Status Known

New Delhi: The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, has discharged a former judicial officer from West Bengal accused of rape, cheating, and criminal intimidation, holding that a consensual physical relationship, even if predicated on a promise of marriage, does not constitute rape if the complainant was aware from the outset that her partner was already married, albeit separated. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma , allowing the appellant's plea, set aside a Calcutta High Court order that had refused to discharge him.

The Court emphasized that when a woman, fully aware of her partner's existing marital status and personal background, enters into and continues a relationship, she makes a "reasoned choice," and cannot later claim 'misconception of fact' to allege rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ).

Case Background: Allegations and Prior Proceedings

The case originated from an FIR lodged in December 2015 by Respondent No. 2 (Complainant) against the Appellant, a retired Civil Judge (Senior Division). The Complainant alleged that she met the Appellant in 2014, then an ACJM in Haldia, during her own marital dispute. She claimed the Appellant, who was also separated from his wife, promised to marry her and support her and her son once her divorce was finalized. On this pretext, he allegedly maintained physical relations with her, provided financial assistance, rented a house for her, and enrolled her son in a school. However, after her divorce, the Appellant purportedly started avoiding her and threatened her.

The police, after an investigation by the CID, West Bengal, filed a charge-sheet against the Appellant under Sections 376 (rape), 417 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC . The Appellant's applications for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) were dismissed by the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Purba Mednipur, and this dismissal was upheld by the Calcutta High Court in February 2024, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments Before the Apex Court

The Appellant's counsel argued that the relationship was consensual, lasting over a year between two mature adults. It was contended that a promise to marry by an already married man is unenforceable and illegal, and the Complainant, aware of his marital status, could not claim inducement for an offence under Section 376 IPC . They cited Dr. Dhruvaram Muralidha Sonar vs State of Maharashtra and argued that the ingredients for cheating ( Section 417 IPC ) were also absent.

The State of West Bengal , represented by the Inspector of Police, CID, countered that there was material evidence suggesting the Appellant used his judicial post to gain the Complainant's trust and sexually exploited her under a false marriage pretext. They pointed to witness statements and Call Detail Records (CDRs) to establish a prima facie case, arguing that the court, at the stage of discharge, should not conduct a mini-trial, citing Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Aryan Singh .

Supreme Court's Analysis: Consent, Knowledge, and Abuse of Process

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the submissions and evidence. Justice Sharma noted: > "It is from day one that she had knowledge and was conscious of the fact, that the Appellant was in a subsisting marriage, though separated. It is upon having an active understanding of the circumstances, actions and the consequences of the acts, that the Complainant made a reasoned choice to sustain a relationship with the Appellant."

The Court referred to its precedent in ** Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs State of Maharashtra **, which established two conditions for a promise to marry to vitiate consent: 1. The promise must have been false, given in bad faith with no intention of adherence. 2. The false promise must have immediate relevance or a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act.

Given the Complainant's awareness of the Appellant's existing marriage, the Court found it "improbable that the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 had engaged in a physical relationship with the Appellant, only on account of an assurance of marriage." It cited * Prashant Bharti Vs State of NCT of Delhi * to support the view that a prolonged association suggests voluntary consent.

Further, relying on ** Uday Vs State of Karnataka **, the Court observed that consent given by a mature individual to sexual intercourse on a promise of later marriage cannot always be termed as given under a "misconception of fact."

Regarding other charges:

* Cheating ( Section 417 IPC ): The Court found "no evidence against the Appellant, to conclude that there was any fraudulent or dishonest inducement." While acknowledging the Appellant's position of power, it stated, "there is nothing on record to establish ‘inducement’ or ‘enticement’."

* Criminal Intimidation ( Section 506 IPC ): "A bare allegation that the Appellant had threatened the Complainant or her son cannot pass the muster of an offence of criminal intimidation."

The Court also noted an inconsistency in the Complainant's statement regarding how she engaged her lawyer, Mr. Gopal Chandra Dass , which "casts a suspicion on the entire narrative of the Complainant," though this did not solely determine the consensual nature of the relationship.

Critically, the judgment observed: > "We find that there is a growing tendency of resorting to initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour. Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry, in the event of a fall out. It is such lis that amounts to an abuse of process of law..."

Final Decision and Implications

Concluding that the physical relationship between the Complainant and the Appellant was consensual and not against her will or without her consent, the Supreme Court deemed it in the interest of justice to terminate the proceedings, which stemmed from an incident in 2014.

"Considering the factual matrix of the case, it is clear that the physical relationship between the Complainant and the Appellant was consensual, cannot be said to be without her consent or against her will," the Court stated.

Consequently, the impugned order of the Calcutta High Court dated 23.02.2024 was set aside, and the criminal appeal filed by the former judicial officer was allowed, leading to his discharge from all charges. This judgment reiterates the judiciary's careful scrutiny in cases alleging rape based on a false promise of marriage, especially when the complainant is aware of circumstances that might make such a promise difficult or legally impossible to fulfill.