A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal against the Chhattisgarh government and the complainant, observing that “a consensual relationship spreading over three years has eventually ended with a criminal case lodged against the appellant.”

In 2025, the complainant registered an FIR against the appellant alleging that he (accused/appellant) refused to marry her after exploiting her sexually under the pretext of marriage. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed in the case pursuant to which the accused filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reiterated Deepak Gulati v State of Haryana, which held that there must be adequate evidence that, “at the initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim.” It also reiterated that a failure to keep a promise about an uncertain future date “does not always amount to misconception of fact”, and that Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 28 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023/BNS) cannot be used to fasten criminal liability “unless the court is assured of the fact that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended to marry her.”

Noting that the complainant is an engineering graduate who had been studying for competitive examinations and had met the appellant at an academy where both were enrolled, the bench noted that the parties fell in love and their family members also talked to each other. The appellant used to visit her house, where she lived with her mother and brother. The physical relationship began when nobody was at home and it continued for about three years.

With regards to the allegation that the appellant came frequently when complainant's mother was away, the Court observed that “obviously, the information that the mother has left, was passed on by the 2nd respondent (complainant) herself, since we cannot presume that the appellant had mounted a constant surveillance of the 2nd respondent's house for this purpose.”

The Court also noted that the relationship continued for three years unabated before the parties separated. Later, a marriage proposal mooted by both families also fell through, after which the complaint was filed.

The complainant asserted that the appellant had agreed to marry her before the Mahila Thana Counselling Centre (Bilaspur) but did not comply. Rejecting the assertion, the Court observed as follows:

“Immediately, we have to observe that the undertaking would have been on the threat of criminal prosecution; which even otherwise is unenforceable. The undertaking also cannot be alleged to be a promise to marry, since by then admittedly there was a courtship of three years, when the 2nd respondent admittedly had permitted physical relationship. The consent obviously was not on coercion or misrepresentation.”

Reiterating Deepak Gulati, the Court further observed that “the consent under fear or misconception cannot be loosely inferred to fasten criminal liability on one of the parties when both admittedly, had a consensual relationship and the other party willingly permitted physical relationship.” It added that even on a bare reading of the complaint, “there is no clear assurance or a promise made of marriage.” The specific allegation was that they entered into a physical relationship after courtship, “fully knowing the consequences, but alleged to be under the pretext of marriage; clearly an afterthought.”

The Court also observed that “the 2nd respondent is a well-educated woman, who entered into a consensual relationship and carried it on, for three years, allegedly on the pretext of marriage, which never fructified. She categorically states that she would drop the charge, if he marries her. A criminal prosecution cannot be reduced to a strong-arm tactic.”

Perusing the facts of the case, the bench quashed the proceedings initiated against the appellant.

“We are unable to find any criminal culpability on the appellant who entered into a consensual relationship with the 2nd respondent, which consent cannot be said to be coerced or obtained on a misrepresentation,” the Court held.

It, thus, quashed the chargesheet and directed that no further proceedings be taken on the charge.

Appearance:

For Appellant: Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Aswathi Mk, AOR; Ms. Ayushi Pandey, Adv.; Mr. Niranjan Marde, Adv.

For Respondents: Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Standing Counsel for State; Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR; Mr. Yashvardhan Shah, Adv.; Mr. Aman Shekhar, Adv.; Ms. Kavyayani N. Singh, Adv.