'Parties Happily Cohabited For 4 Yrs, Relationship Soured Later' : Supreme Court Quashes False Marriage Promise Rape Case

“In the light of the admitted facts, parties had knowledge that they were married to some other spouse earlier and the admitted fact is that before obtaining a divorce, the respondent-complainant gave a matrimonial advertisement and before finalization of divorce, had sexual relationship and never complained of any force by the appellant for 04 years. We are of the opinion that this was not a case where a promise of marriage resulted in appellant deceiving the complainant. Parties have happily cohabited together between 2017 and 2020 and, thereafter, the relationship soured”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Manmohan set aside the Bombay High Court's order refusing to entertain the appellant's quashing petition on the ground that it was not maintainable as he had earlier withdrawn a petition to quash the same offence.

The Court held that the High Court was not justified in rejecting the petition since the earlier quashing plea had been withdrawn without a decision on merits, and in the present case, once it found that no offence was made out, it would not be just to dismiss the petition on that ground.

“We are also not convinced with the reasoning of the High Court that the quash petition was not maintainable, especially, because in the present case the earlier petition was withdrawn without any discussion on the merits. Further when we have examined the facts and found that the offence alleged is not made out, we feel it will not be just to throw out the petition on maintainability. We say so on the special facts of this case”, the Court said.

The appellant was booked for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 377 and 506 of the IPC. According to the complainant, she had been married in 1998 and had started living separately from her husband in 2012. In 2017, before her divorce was finalised, she created a profile on a matrimonial website seeking a second marriage. She claimed that the appellant contacted her through this platform and remained in touch, assuring her that he would marry her.

The complainant alleged that on October 17, 2017, the appellant visited her, stayed for two to three days, and had sexual intercourse with her against her will, including unnatural intercourse. She also stated that the parties continued in a relationship, travelled together, stayed in hotels, and maintained a physical relationship over several years.

On February 06, 2021, when she sought to meet the appellant in Surat and pressed for marriage, he did not respond and later refused to marry her. She then lodged a complaint alleging that he had lured her into a physical relationship on the promise of marriage.

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appellant's petition seeking quashing of proceedings on the ground that an earlier quashing petition had been withdrawn and that the allegations required trial.

The Supreme Court noted that both parties knew they were previously married, the complainant had sought remarriage even before her divorce was finalised, and the parties had maintained a physical relationship over several years.

The Court noted that the alleged forcible incident of October 17, 2017 was not reported until February 09, 2021, despite continued interaction between the parties.

The Court relied on its judgment in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., in which it had held that a distinction must be drawn between a false promise made with no intention to marry and a breach of promise arising from subsequent circumstances. It had held that for criminal liability to arise, the physical relationship must be directly attributable to a false promise and not influenced by other factors.

The Court held that the case did not involve a false promise of marriage leading to deception. It quashed the case, observing that the parties had cohabited between 2017 and 2020 and the relationship later deteriorated.

Case no. – SLP (Crl.) No. 2260/2026

Case Title – Shaileshbhai Govindbhai Makwana v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 459