The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR and subsequent chargesheet registered against a practising advocate for offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), and 507 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan held that a consensual relationship that continued for a prolonged period cannot be retrospectively branded as rape merely because it failed to culminate in marriage. The Bench observed that the misuse of criminal justice machinery to convert failed relationships into criminal offences “calls for condemnation.”
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed challenging the order of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad dated March 6, 2025, which had dismissed the appellant’s application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking to quash the proceedings.
The complainant (Respondent No. 2) was a married woman residing separately from her husband since May 2020 due to matrimonial discord. She met the appellant, a practising advocate, on January 27, 2022, in connection with maintenance proceedings she had initiated against her husband. Over time, they developed a close relationship.
According to the prosecution, the appellant proposed marriage, which the complainant initially declined citing her troubled marital past. However, on March 12, 2022, the appellant allegedly assured her of marriage and established physical relations with her. The relationship continued, leading to pregnancies in September 2022, July 2023, and May 2024, all of which were terminated.
On August 31, 2024, the complainant lodged FIR No. 294 of 2024 at City Chowk Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar City, alleging that on May 20, 2024, the appellant refused to marry her and threatened her. She alleged that her consent was obtained on a false promise of marriage.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellant’s Contentions: Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had been falsely implicated. It was argued that:
- Respondent No. 2 is a well-educated woman, married with a minor daughter, and no divorce decree had been passed.
- The relationship subsisted for three years, during which no complaint was ever lodged.
- The FIR was lodged in a fit of anger in August 2024 only after the appellant refused to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- demanded by the complainant.
The Respondent’s Contentions: The State supported the High Court’s order, arguing that the allegations disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. It was submitted that the veracity of the defence was a matter for trial and should not be adjudicated in a quashing petition. The Amicus Curiae for Respondent No. 2 also opposed the appeal.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court examined whether the allegations constituted an offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, which pertains to committing rape repeatedly on the same woman.
On the Nature of the Relationship The Court noted that the relationship continued for three years, during which the parties remained close and emotionally involved. The Bench 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… 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.”
On the Delay and Subsisting Marriage The Court highlighted that the complainant, despite being opposed to marriage initially, continued to meet the appellant and indulge in physical relations. The Court found it significant that the FIR was lodged nearly three months after the last alleged act of sexual intimacy.
“It is also pertinent to note that, at the relevant time, the marriage of respondent No.2 was subsisting. In light of the foregoing circumstances, even upon a bare reading of the material on record, it is manifest that the relationship between the parties was consensual…”
On Misuse of Law Justice B.V. Nagarathna, writing for the Bench, expressed concern over the trend of criminalising broken relationships:
“To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice… The misuse of the criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound concern and calls for condemnation.”
Review of Precedents The Court referred to several key judgments to support its reasoning:
- Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024): The Court reiterated that for a man to be held liable, the physical relationship “must be traceable directly to the false promise made and not qualified by other circumstances.”
- Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025): The Court cited this recent judgment which held that “a mere break-up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in the initiation of criminal proceedings.”
- Rajnish Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025): The Court relied on the principle that an accused is not liable for rape if the victim willfully agreed to maintain sexual relations, even if motivated by love and passion.
On False Promise to Marry The Court distinguished between a false promise made in bad faith and a breach of promise. It noted that the complainant herself had opposed the proposal of marriage on several occasions.
“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.”
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS was unsustainable. The Bench held that the case was a “classic instance of a consensual relationship having subsequently turned acrimonious.”
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated March 6, 2025. Consequently, FIR No. 294 of 2024 and Chargesheet No. 143 of 2024 were quashed.
The Court also directed the Registry to pay an honorarium of Rs. 15,000 to Ms. Radhika Gowtam, the Advocate-on-Record appointed as Amicus Curiae.
Case Details
- Case Title: Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra & Another
- Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 5001 of 2025
- Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
