Quashing of Rape Allegation Based on Broken Marriage Promise: Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant ruling in the case of ABC vs. XYZ, where the Court addressed the issue of a rape allegation stemming from a broken promise of marriage. The case involved a long-term consensual relationship between two adults, which later turned into a legal dispute when the complainant accused the respondent of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with financial claims.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated when ABC (the petitioner) filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), alleging that XYZ (the respondent) had issued bounced cheques. Simultaneously, ABC also lodged an FIR under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC, claiming that XYZ had coerced her into a sexual relationship under the false promise of marriage but later married someone else.

XYZ sought the transfer of proceedings in Criminal Complaint No. AC 4033 of 2018 from South 24 Parganas, Alipur, to Rohini Court, Delhi. With mutual consent, the Supreme Court referred the matter to mediation, where both parties agreed to a financial settlement. Consequently, XYZ paid ABC ₹25,00,000 via demand drafts as part of the settlement.

Key Legal Issues

Whether consensual sexual relations, followed by a refusal to marry, amount to rape under Section 376 IPC.
Whether the FIR alleging rape should be quashed when the relationship lasted for years and was based on mutual consent.
Whether financial disputes related to bounced cheques could be settled amicably.
Whether the criminal cases related to financial transactions and the rape allegation could be transferred and dismissed.

Arguments Presented

Arguments by the Petitioner (ABC)

XYZ had engaged in a long-term sexual relationship with ABC under the false promise of marriage.
XYZ ultimately married another person, leading to ABC filing a complaint of rape (Section 376 IPC) and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC).
XYZ had also issued cheques that later bounced, leading to a Section 138 NI Act complaint.
Given the nature of the allegations, the matter should be tried in Delhi rather than West Bengal.

Arguments by the Respondent (XYZ)

The relationship was entirely consensual and lasted for four to five years.
Sexual relations between two consenting adults cannot be categorized as rape merely because the marriage did not take place.
There was no coercion or false promise of marriage, and the complainant had consented to the relationship as an adult.
Financial disputes were separate matters, and mediation had successfully resolved them.
Courts have previously ruled that a broken promise to marry does not automatically amount to rape.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed the facts and ruled that the rape allegation lacked legal merit. The Court stated:

“Contents of the FIR clearly suggest that both parties being adults had consensual relations for years before the complaint was filed, alleging that there was a backing out of a promise to marry. This Court has consistently opined that under these admitted facts no case is made out under Section 376 IPC.”

The Court cited previous judgments, including:

XXXX v. State of M.P. – Establishing that long-term consensual relationships do not constitute rape merely due to non-fulfillment of a marriage promise.
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra – Holding that a broken engagement or failed marriage promise is insufficient for a rape conviction.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court delivered the following decisions:

FIR No. 331 of 2018 (rape and criminal intimidation) was quashed as it did not constitute an offense under Section 376 IPC.
Criminal Complaint No. AC 4033 of 2018 and Civil Suit No. CS DJ 971 of 2018 were dismissed as withdrawn following the financial settlement.
The Supreme Court reiterated that long-term consensual relationships based on mutual understanding do not amount to rape merely because one party later refuses to marry.
The names of the parties were masked in the final judgment to protect their identities.

This ruling reinforces the principle that while fraudulent misrepresentation regarding marriage may be punishable in some cases, not every failed relationship constitutes rape. It also highlights the importance of distinguishing between consensual relationships and criminal offenses under Indian law.

Petitioner Name: ABC.
Respondent Name: XYZ.
Judgment By: Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice Rajesh Bindal.
Place Of Incident: South 24 Parganas, Alipur.
Judgment Date: 11-12-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: abc-vs-xyz-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-11-12-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Suicide Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by J.K. Maheshwari
See all petitions in Judgment by Rajesh Bindal
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category