Refusal to Marry After Long Consensual Live-in Relationship Not Rape Under S.376 IPC; Supreme Court Quashes FIR - 2025-06-27

Refusal to Marry After Long Live-In Relationship Not Rape, Presumption of Consent Arises: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that in a long-term live-in relationship, a presumption of valid consent for physical relations arises, and a subsequent refusal to marry does not automatically constitute the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). The Court quashed an FIR against a man, holding that continuing the prosecution would be an "abuse of the process of the court."

The bench set aside a judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court which had refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR lodged on November 23, 2023, by the second respondent (the informant). She alleged that she and the appellant met on Facebook in February 2021 and subsequently entered into a live-in relationship. She claimed the appellant established a physical relationship with her multiple times under the promise of marriage. The relationship soured when, upon her insistence on marriage, the appellant allegedly refused, threatened her, and forcibly established a physical relationship on November 18, 2023.

The police registered an FIR under Sections 376 (rape) , 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC . The appellant's plea to quash the FIR was dismissed by the Uttarakhand High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Key Arguments

Appellant's Contentions: The appellant argued that the relationship, spanning over two years, was entirely consensual between two adults. A crucial piece of evidence was a settlement agreement dated November 19, 2023—a day after the alleged final assault. This agreement stated, "We both the parties know each other since February, 2021. We love each other," and outlined their intention to get married. The appellant contended that this document proved the falsity of the assault allegation and showed the relationship was based on love, not a deceptive promise.

Respondent's Contentions: Counsel for the respondents, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla , argued that the promise to marry was false from the outset, vitiating the informant's consent for the sexual relationship. She submitted that the agreement itself contemplated legal action if the marriage did not materialize, which is precisely what happened. Citing the precedent in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharastra , she argued that a false promise to marry for the purpose of sexual relations falls within the definition of rape.

Court's Reasoning and Precedents

The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis, distinguishing between a "mere breach of a promise" and a "false promise" made with deceitful intent from the beginning.

The Court observed: > "In our view, if two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences."

The judgment emphasized that the FIR did not allege that the physical relationship would not have occurred but for the promise of marriage. The bench referenced past decisions, including:

Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013):

This case established the need to differentiate between a man with mala fide motives and one who is unable to marry due to unforeseen circumstances.

Sonu @ Subash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021):

The Court had previously quashed an FIR in a similar case involving a consensual relationship of one-and-a-half years that ended when the appellant expressed disinclination to marry.

The Court also took a modern view on evolving social norms, stating: > "A decade or two earlier, live-in relationships might not have been common. But now more and more women are financially independent and have the capacity to take conscious decision of charting their life on their own terms... when a matter of this nature comes to a court, it must not adopt a pedantic approach..."

Critically, the Court found that the settlement agreement of November 19, 2023, which stated that the parties were "in love," directly negated the allegation of a forcible sexual assault on November 18, 2023. The other allegations of assault and abuse were deemed to be without material support.

Final Decision

Concluding that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's order and quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it. The decision underscores the judiciary's nuanced approach to cases emerging from failed live-in relationships, placing a high burden on the prosecution to prove that a promise to marry was false from its inception rather than merely breached later.