'Happily Cohabited for 4 Years': Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Over 'Soured' Relationship

In a significant ruling on consent and deception in sexual offence cases, the Supreme Court of India has quashed criminal proceedings against Shaileshbhai Govindbhai Makwana, accused of rape under a false promise of marriage. A bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Manmohan set aside the Bombay High Court's refusal to quash the case, emphasizing that a prolonged consensual relationship cannot be retroactively criminalized when it sours. The decision, cited as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 459 , underscores the need to distinguish genuine consent from vitiated consent in such matters.

Matrimonial Ad Sparks a Long-Term Affair, Not Deception

The case traces back to 2017, when the complainant—previously married in 1998 and separated since 2012—posted a profile on a matrimonial website before finalizing her divorce. The appellant contacted her, promising marriage while disclosing his own ongoing divorce. On October 17, 2017, he visited her in Tuljapur, Maharashtra, staying for days, helping with chores, and allegedly having sexual and unnatural intercourse "against her will."

Yet, the complainant admitted the relationship continued consensually: trips to hotels in Bhuj and Surat, physical intimacy over years, and even financial transfers totaling ₹2.5 lakh from her to him. Her divorce finalized only in 2018, but no complaint surfaced until February 2021, after he refused marriage in Surat. This led to FIR on February 9, 2021, and chargesheet under Sections 376(2)(n) (aggravated rape), 377 (unnatural offences), and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC , culminating in RCC No. 328/2021 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tuljapur.

The Bombay High Court dismissed Makwana's quashing plea, citing a prior withdrawn petition and the need for trial.

Appellant's Case: 'Knowledgeable Consent, Not Coercion'

Represented by advocate Sachin Patil, Makwana argued both parties knew of each other's prior marriages. The complainant advertised for remarriage pre-divorce, and their physical relationship spanned over four years without force complaints—even during undivorced periods. Patil stressed no "deception" under a marriage promise, as intimacy persisted post-alleged 2017 incident. He invoked precedents like M.C. Ravi Kumar v. D.S. Velmurugan (2025 SCC Online SC 1498) to assert a second quashing petition was maintainable since the first was withdrawn without merits discussion.

State's Defence: 'Allegations Demand Full Trial'

Counsel Rukhmini Bobde defended the High Court's order, upholding that offences under IPC Sections 376, 377, and 506 warranted trial, with no bar to proceedings despite the prior withdrawal.

Drawing the Line: False Promise vs. Unfortunate Breakup

The Supreme Court meticulously parsed the facts: mutual awareness of marital statuses, complainant's pre-divorce matrimonial ad, four years of "happy cohabitation" (2017-2020), and delayed reporting of the 2017 incident despite ongoing relations. Relying on Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra ((2024) 11 SCC 398), the bench clarified the crucial distinction:

“There is a difference between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise... In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry... whereas in case of breach of promise... circumstances beyond his control [may intervene].”

It held physical relations over a prolonged period, absent direct nexus to a false promise, cannot vitiate consent. Here, other factors like "personal liking" were evident, negating criminality. The Court also rejected the High Court's maintainability bar, noting the prior withdrawal lacked merits adjudication—especially since no offence was made out.

Key Observations from the Bench

  • On the relationship's nature : “Parties have happily cohabited together between 2017 and 2020 and, thereafter, the relationship soured.”
  • No deception found : “This was not a case where a promise of marriage resulted in appellant deceiving the complainant.”
  • Prolonged conduct speaks volumes : “Admittedly, for over a period of 04 years, the parties travelled together and established a physical relationship... No complaint... was lodged till 09.02.2021.”
  • Nexus test for liability : “Any such physical relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise made and not qualified by other circumstances.”

Final Verdict: Clean Slate for the Accused

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on April 20, 2026, quashing RCC No. 328/2021 entirely:

“RCC No. 328/21 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tuljapur... would stand quashed.”

Bail bonds were discharged, signaling no further proceedings. This ruling reinforces safeguards against misuse of rape laws in consensual adult relationships that fail, urging courts to probe intent and duration before invoking Section 376 IPC . It may guide future quashing petitions, particularly distinguishing "lust-driven deceit" from relationships undone by life's turns.