Difficult To Believe Married Woman Was Induced Into Sex With False Marriage Promise : Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case

The Supreme Court on Thursday (February 5) quashed criminal proceedings against a Chhattisgarh advocate accused of repeatedly raping a married woman colleague on the false promise of marriage.

“It has been time and again settled by this Court, that the mere fact that the parties indulged in physical relations pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case. An offence under Section 375 of the IPC could only be made out, if promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations without having any intent of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning and that such false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, while setting aside the Chhattisgarh High Court's order that refused to quash the rape case against the Appellant.

The complainant, also a 33-year-old advocate and a married mother with a pending divorce petition, had alleged that the Appellant established a physical relationship with her starting in September 2022 on the assurance of marriage. She claimed the relationship continued until January 2025, during which she became pregnant and was forced to undergo an abortion. After a confrontation with his family turned hostile, she lodged an FIR in February 2025 under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, which prescribes enhanced punishment for rape committed "repeatedly on the same woman."

Aggrieved by the High Court's refusal to quash the FIR, the accused moved to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna observed that the complainant was legally married throughout the period of the alleged relationship, as her divorce was still pending adjudication. Consequently, any promise of marriage made by the appellant to a married woman was legally impossible to perform from its inception, as under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marriage is void if either party has a living spouse.

“The law prohibits bigamous unions and therefore disallows parties from entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of their first marriage. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the view that the complainant-respondent No.3, who herself is an advocate, was oblivious to the said settled position of law and hence was duped and induced by the accused appellant into having sexual relations with him on different occasions on the pretext of marriage especially when both the parties were cognizant of the marital status of the complainant respondent No.3.,” the Court stated.

The Court found the present case did not demonstrate a false promise made with a mens rea to deceive for sexual gratification. Instead, it pointed to a consensual relationship between two aware, educated adults that later turned acrimonious.

“In our opinion, the facts of the present case clearly indicate a consensual relationship gone sour whereas both the parties should have exercised restraint and should have refrained from involving the State into their personal relationship turning rancour.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: P N VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 118

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jugul Kishor Gupta, AOR Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Adv. Mr. Ankit Borker, Adv. Mr. Ankit Tiwari, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praneet Pranav, D.A.G. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ayushi Pandey, Adv. Ms. Aswathi M.k., AOR Mr. Rishabh, Adv