Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra, quashed criminal proceedings arising from an FIR lodged under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Bench held that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults over a prolonged period cannot give rise to a presumption of rape merely due to the absence of subsequent marriage.

The case originated from a First Information Report lodged on 23.11.2023 by the second respondent at Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. The FIR alleged that the informant and the appellant had met via Facebook on 06.02.2021, entered a live-in relationship, and resided in a rented accommodation in Khatima. During this period, they engaged in repeated physical relations. The informant alleged instances of abuse and physical assault. When she insisted on marriage, the appellant allegedly refused, threatened her, and forcibly established a physical relationship on 18.11.2023.

Also Read: Supreme Court : Insurer Liable For Fatal Trailer Mishap Pulled By Insured Tractor | Payment Ordered Within Two Months Under Root Cause Doctrine

The FIR was registered under IPC Sections 376 (rape), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation). Seeking quashing of the FIR, the appellant approached the High Court of Uttarakhand by filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 922 of 2024 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC).

The application contended that both parties were adults, had willingly cohabited for over two years, and had mutually agreed to marry, as evidenced by a written agreement dated 19.11.2023. The appellant argued that the allegations were fabricated, intended to harass and blackmail him, and unsupported by medical evidence.

The High Court dismissed the application on 11.12.2024, stating that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant held that the existence of a signed settlement dated 19.11.2023. The settlement recorded: "We must conduct Mangbhari and live like husband and wife in the room and we would hand over our papers today to the Advocate to register their marriage... We love each other." Relying on this, the appellant argued that the allegation of forced intercourse on 18.11.2023 was inconsistent and false.

The respondents, represented by Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, countered that the settlement specified legal action could be pursued if the marriage was not formalized. They argued that since the marriage had not occurred, and the relationship was premised on a false promise, the informant’s consent stood vitiated under the law.

The respondent relied on the precedent in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, to argue that the promise to marry, if proven false at inception, could constitute a "misconception of fact" under Section 90 IPC.

The Court examined the facts and submissions meticulously. It noted that the parties had lived together since 2021, sharing a rented accommodation. The FIR, the Court observed, did not claim that physical intimacy was solely a consequence of a marriage promise.

"The relationship between the appellant and the second respondent... was spread over two years. Further, they not only admit of having physical relations with each other but also of living together in a rented accommodation as a live-in couple."

The Court clarified that prolonged cohabitation implied voluntary consent. "A presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences." It found no material to support the claim that the physical relationship was induced solely by a marriage promise.

Addressing the legal framework, the Court reiterated its earlier jurisprudence: In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, it had held: "To establish a false promise, it would have to be demonstrated that the maker of the promise had no intention of upholding his word at the time of making the promise."

Further, in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675, it was observed: "There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex... the Court must examine whether there was, at an early stage, a false promise of marriage by the accused... or where an accused on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so."

The Court also referred to Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 18 SCC 517, where an FIR was quashed based on similar facts: prolonged consensual relationship and subsequent refusal to marry.

In its present reasoning, the Supreme Court stated:

"A decade or two earlier, live-in relationships might not have been common. But now more and more women are financially independent... Therefore, when a matter of this nature comes to a court, it must not adopt a pedantic approach... the Court may, based on the length of such relationship and conduct of the parties, presume implied consent of the parties to be in such a relationship regardless of their desire or a wish to convert it into a marital bond."

The Court concluded that the agreement dated 19.11.2023, uncontested by the second respondent, indicated mutual affection. The complaint lacked supporting material for the alleged assault.

"Even the alleged sexual assault on 18.11.2023 is negated by the recital in the settlement agreement that parties love each other."

Also Read: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Mandatory Two-Year Internship For Foreign Medical Graduates | Online Classes Cannot Replace Clinical Training

Based on its findings, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding: "The impugned first information report and the consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof are nothing but abuse of the process of the court and the same deserves to be quashed."

The appeal was allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. "The impugned first information report and the consequential proceedings are hereby quashed."

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Gautam Barnwal, Adv., Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Adv., Mr. Nishant Gill, Adv., Mr. Saksham Kumar, Adv., Mr. Aakash, Adv., Mr. Mukesh Kumar, AOR

For the Respondents: Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR, Mr. Ajay Bahuguna, Adv., Mr. Siddhant Yadav, Adv., Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR, Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv.

Case Title: XXXXX vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 635

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2438 of 2025 (@ Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2776 of 2025)

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Manoj Misra

[Read/Download order]