Acting On 'Sixth Sense', Supreme Court Facilitates Marriage; Quashes Rape Conviction Over False Marriage Promise
The Court said that the case was one where a consensual relationship was given a criminal colour after it turned sour.
The Supreme Court has quashed the rape conviction and sentence of a man accused of sexually exploiting a woman on the false promise of marriage, after the parties married each other during the pendency of the appeal, with the Court remarking that it had acted on a “sixth sense” that the dispute could be resolved by bringing them together.
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do “complete justice” by quashing the FIR, conviction and sentence against the appellant.
The Court made the bservation while recounting the course of proceedings triggered by the appellant's challenge to the Madhya Pradesh High Court's refusal to suspend his sentence. Justice Nagarathna, writing the judgment, noted that when the matter first came up before the Supreme Court, “on a consideration of the facts of the case, we had a sixth sense that the appellant and the respondent prosecutrix could be brought together once again if they decided to marry each other.”
Acting on this instinct, the Bench suggested to counsel that instructions be sought from the parties. Both the appellant and the prosecutrix were thereafter produced before the Court, where the judges interacted with them in chambers in the presence of their parents. The Court recorded that the parties expressed willingness to marry each other, following which interim bail was granted to the appellant. The marriage took place on July 22, 2025, and the couple has since been living together.
“This is one of those rare cases where on the intervention of this Court the appellant… was ultimately benefitted by quashing of his conviction as well as the sentence,” the judgment said, adding that the parents of both parties were “happy by this development.”
Background of the case
The prosecutrix and the appellant met on a social media platform in 2015 and developed a relationship, which later turned physical. The woman alleged that she consented to the relationship on the basis of a false promise of marriage. After the marriage did not materialise within the expected time, she lodged an FIR in November 2021 under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC.
The trial court convicted the appellant for repeated rape and cheating, sentencing him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for the rape charge and two years for cheating. His appeal against conviction was pending before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had rejected his application for suspension of sentence, prompting the approach to the Supreme Court.
Consensual relationship wrongly criminalised
In its final judgment, the Supreme Court held that the case appeared to be one where a consensual relationship had been given a “criminal colour” due to a misunderstanding. The Bench observed that both parties had intended to marry and that the criminal complaint may have been triggered by insecurity caused when the appellant sought postponement of the marriage.
“We think that owing to a misunderstanding the consensual relationship between the parties was given a criminal colour and converted into an offence of false promise of marriage,” the Court said.
Taking note of the subsequent marriage and the prosecutrix's statement that she did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further, the Bench quashed the FIR, the trial court judgment and the sentence, rendering the pending appeal before the High Court infructuous.
The Court also directed the Madhya Pradesh authorities to revoke the appellant's suspension from government service and pay arrears of salary within two months, noting that he had already rejoined duty following interim orders staying his conviction.
The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
Case : Sandeep Singh Thakur v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1251