Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan quashed the rape case against an advocate, holding that the allegations of repeated sexual assault on the basis of an alleged promise of marriage did not disclose the ingredients of the offences. The dispute concerned a long-term relationship in which the complainant later alleged that physical intimacy was induced by an assurance of marriage. The Court found, however, that the material reflected voluntary participation and described the matter as “a classic instance of a consensual relationship having subsequently turned acrimonious.” Concluding that continuation of the prosecution would misuse criminal process, the Court directed that the FIR and chargesheet be set aside.

The matter concerns a criminal appeal arising from an FIR lodged by a woman alleging that an advocate engaged in repeated sexual relations with her under a false assurance of marriage. According to the complaint, the woman had been living separately from her husband due to matrimonial issues. In connection with her maintenance proceedings, she met the advocate in January 2022, after which they remained in frequent contact. Their interactions developed into a personal relationship, and they met multiple times, including at a hotel where physical intimacy occurred. The woman stated that the advocate had expressed his willingness to marry her, and she later became pregnant on multiple occasions, with each pregnancy ending in termination with his knowledge.

Also Read: Vehicle Ownership Not Evidence Of Drug-Trade Earnings; Inference Was Biased: Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Preventive Detention

The complainant asserted that despite continued assurances, the advocate ultimately refused to marry her and allegedly threatened her when she insisted. Based on these allegations, offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 507 of the IPC were invoked. During investigation, statements of the woman and her mother were recorded, and a chargesheet was filed.

The advocate contended that the relationship was consensual, ongoing for three years, and that no complaint was made during that period. He asserted that the complaint arose only after he declined a monetary demand. The State argued that the allegations warranted trial, as the assertions in the FIR disclosed cognizable offences.

The Court cited the decision of Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra, where it was held that “unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby having a direct nexus with the physical relationship without being influenced by any other consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent under misconception of fact.”

Applying the law, the Court observed: “We find that the present case is not a case where the appellant lured respondent No.2 solely for physical pleasures and then vanished. The relationship continued for a period of three long years, which is a considerable period of time. They remained close and emotionally involved. In such cases, physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage.”

Discrediting the woman's case, the Court observed: “The FIR is conspicuously silent as to any specific allegation that the appellant had either forcibly taken or compelled respondent No.2 to accompany him to the hotel, nor does it Page 17 of 24 disclose any circumstance suggesting deceit or inducement on the part of the appellant to procure her presence there. Therefore, the only logical inference that emerges is that respondent No.2, of her own volition, visited and met the appellant on each occasion. It is also borne out from the record that whenever the appellant brought up the subject of marriage, respondent No.2 herself opposed the proposal. In such circumstances, the contention of respondent No.2 that the physical relationship between the parties was premised upon any assurance of marriage by the appellant is devoid of merit and stands unsustainable.”

Also Read: Vehicle Ownership Not Evidence Of Drug-Trade Earnings; Inference Was Biased: Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Preventive Detention

The Court reiterated the observation made in Rajnish Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh that “when a woman who willingly engages in a long-term sexual relationship with a man, fully aware of its nature and without any cogent evidence to show that such relationship was induced by misconception of fact or false promise of marriage made in bad faith from the inception, the man cannot be held guilty of rape under Section 376 of the IPC.”

The Court concluded the matter by stating that “the said application accordingly stands allowed.” It further directed that “FIR No. 294 of 2024 dated 31.08.2024… and Chargesheet No. 143 of 2024 dated 25.10.2024… accordingly stands quashed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Sneha Sanjay Botwe, AOR; Mr. Siddharth S. Chapalgaonkar, Adv.; Mr. Bharat Doifode, Adv.; Mr. Ashraf Patel, Adv.; Mr. Akash Tripathi, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR; Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.; Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.; Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.; Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.; Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.; Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.; Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.

Case Title: Samadhan S/o Sitatram Manmothe vs. State of Maharashtra & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1351
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 5001 of 2025
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice R. Mahadevan