SC Rightly Quashes Rape Case In Consensual Relationship
🔹 Legal Framework
Section 375, IPC defines rape.
However, consent plays a central role. If the relationship is consensual, it does not amount to rape unless:
Consent was obtained under misconception of fact (Section 90 IPC), such as a false promise of marriage.
Consent was coerced, given under threat, or without free will.
The SC has held that every breach of a promise to marry does not amount to rape. Only if the promise was false from the very inception, made solely to deceive the woman into sexual relations, it can attract Section 375 IPC.
🔹 Key Judicial Reasoning
Consensual sexual relationships cannot automatically be termed rape.
If both parties willingly enter into a relationship, and later differences arise (such as refusal to marry), the criminal law of rape should not be misused.
Misuse of law needs to be prevented.
Courts have observed that many times, women file rape cases after failed relationships or disputes, which is not the true intention of Section 375 IPC.
Distinction between “false promise” and “breach of promise.”
False promise: Intention was dishonest from the beginning → may amount to rape.
Breach of promise: Genuine intention to marry initially, but circumstances later changed → not rape.
🔹 Important Case Laws
1. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608
The SC held:
If the promise to marry was false from the beginning and made only to obtain consent for sex, it amounts to rape.
But if the relationship was consensual and the promise failed due to later circumstances, it is not rape.
2. Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46
The Court ruled that consent given by a woman in love with a man, under a genuine promise of marriage, which later could not be fulfilled, does not amount to rape.
There must be evidence that the man never intended to marry her from the very beginning.
3. Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 18 SCC 191
The SC quashed rape charges, holding that consensual sexual relationship between two adults cannot be categorized as rape merely because the relationship ended or marriage did not happen.
4. Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108
The Court acquitted the accused, observing that consent under a misconception of fact must be proved.
A mere failure to keep the promise of marriage is insufficient to establish rape.
5. Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675
The SC highlighted the difference between mere breach of promise and false promise of marriage with malafide intention.
Only the latter can be rape.
🔹 Why SC Quashes Such Cases
Protection from misuse – Prevents misuse of rape provisions in failed relationships.
Preserving sanctity of criminal law – Criminal law should not be used for settling personal disputes.
Upholding individual autonomy – Adults have a right to engage in consensual relationships.
Requirement of mens rea (intention) – Without evidence of initial fraudulent intent, rape charges cannot stand.
✅ Conclusion:
The Supreme Court rightly quashes rape cases in consensual relationships where no evidence exists of fraudulent intent from the inception. This ensures a balance between protecting women from exploitation and preventing misuse of rape provisions in cases of failed love affairs.
RELATED Blog
0 comments