'Hard To Believe Highly Qualified Woman Allowed Man To Sexually Exploit Her For 16 Years On Marriage Promise' : Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case

The Supreme Court on Monday (March 3) quashed a criminal proceeding against a man who was accused of sexually assaulting a woman, with whom he had a 16-year-old consensual sexual relationship, on a false pretext of marriage.

The Court reaffirmed that a mere breach of a marriage promise does not constitute rape unless it is proven that the accused never intended to marry the woman from the outset of the relationship.

The Court expressed surprise that the complainant, a highly educated and well-established adult, did not report the alleged sexual assaults for over a decade, raising doubts about the credibility of her claims. It noted that she filed the FIR only after the accused married another woman, suggesting an ulterior motive to harass him.

“It is hard to believe that the complainant, being a highly qualified and well-placed major woman, kept on bending to the demands of the appellant for a period of nearly 16 years without raising any protest to any quarter that the appellant was exploiting her sexually under the pretext of a false promise of marriage. The prolonged period of 16 years during which the sexual relations continued unabatedly between the parties, is sufficient to conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship.”, the court observed.

“It is almost impossible to swallow the version of the complainant that for the entire period of 16 years, she unreservedly allowed the appellant to subject her to repeated acts of sexual intercourse under the impression that the accused would on someday act upon his promise of marriage.”, the court added.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing the appeal filed by the accused against the High Court's decision dismissing his quashing petition. The FIR in the instant case was lodged in 2022, for the offence of rape and a chargesheet was also filed by the police the same year. It was alleged that the accused, sometime in the year 2006, sneaked into the house of the complainant in the night and subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. The Court noted that in the intervening period, the intimacy between the appellant and the complainant continued to flourish.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant, being a major and educated woman, willingly engaged in a long-term relationship with him. He claimed the allegations were fabricated after their relationship soured and he married another woman.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta noted that the appellant cannot be held liable for rape on false pretext of marriage because the complainant and appellant were in a consensual relationship for 16 years, during which they lived together and even performed informal marriage rituals.

The Court referred to precedents like Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that a prolonged consensual relationship cannot be considered rape based on a false promise of marriage unless the consent was vitiated by deceit from the outset.

The Court found no evidence that the appellant had mala fide intentions or made a false promise of marriage at the beginning of the relationship.

“It is, therefore, clear that the accused is not liable for the offence of rape if the victim has wilfully agreed to maintain sexual relations. The Court has also recognised that a prosecutrix can agree to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused.”, the court said.

“Thus, by no stretch of imagination, can this Court be convinced that present is a case wherein the appellant is liable to be prosecuted for having sexually exploited/assaulted the complainant based on a false promise of marriage. The allegations of the complainant are full of material contradictions and are ex facie unbelievable. Throughout the prolonged period of 16 years, the complainant kept completely quiet about the alleged sexual abuse, meted out to her by the appellant until she learnt that the appellant had married another woman. Further in complete contradiction to the case setup in the FIR, the complainant has on many occasions portrayed herself to be the wife of the appellant and thus, evidently, they lived together as man and wife. Additionally, the long gap of 16 years between the first alleged act of sexual intercourse, continued relations for one and a half decade till the filing of the FIR convinces us that it is a clear case of a love affair/live in relationship gone sour.”, the court added.

Thus, the Court held that continuing the criminal proceedings against the appellant would be unjust and amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, and the proceedings against the appellant were dropped.

Case Title: RAJNISH SINGH @ SONI VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Purvish Malkan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vishal Thakre, Adv. Ms. Anjale Kumari, Adv. Ms. Manshu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Satyapal Sehgal, Adv. Mr. Aditya Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Mr. Harshit Singhal, Adv. Mr. Nitin Meshram, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv. Mr. Rishi Raj Singh, Adv. Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, AOR

Also Read: Know The Law | When Can Sex On Promise To Marry Amount To Offence Of Rape?