The Supreme Court of India has quashed a rape case registered against an advocate, ruling that a promise of marriage cannot be held as a basis for a “false promise” claim when the prosecutrix herself was not eligible for marriage due to an existing subsisting marriage. The Court observed that the relationship between the parties appeared to be consensual and had turned acrimonious, leading to the misuse of criminal machinery.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the appeal filed by Pramod Kumar Navratna, setting aside the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court which had refused to quash the FIR.
Legal Issue and Outcome
The primary legal issue before the Apex Court was whether the ingredients of Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (rape committed repeatedly on the same woman) were made out in a case where the prosecutrix, a married woman with a pending divorce appeal, alleged she was raped on a false pretext of marriage.
The Supreme Court held that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not constitute the offence of rape. Consequently, the Court quashed FIR No. 213/2025 and the subsequent Sessions Case No. 89/2025 pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from an FIR lodged on February 6, 2025, by the complainant (Respondent No. 3), an advocate by profession. She alleged that she met the appellant, also an advocate, at a social event on September 18, 2022. The complainant stated that although she informed the appellant about her pending divorce proceedings, he established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage.
The complainant alleged that the appellant applied vermilion on her head and promised to marry her but later became evasive when she informed him of her pregnancy, allegedly forcing her to abort. She further alleged that when she visited his house on January 27, 2025, she was assaulted by his family.
Conversely, the appellant had lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police on the same day the FIR was registered, alleging blackmail and harassment by the complainant. He contended that they shared a workspace as colleagues and friends, and he never intended to marry her.
The appellant approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh seeking to quash the FIR. While the High Court granted him anticipatory bail on March 3, 2025, noting the consensual nature of the relationship, it dismissed his writ petition for quashing the FIR on the same day. The High Court had reasoned that the “misconception of fact or pretext of marriage are questions of fact which require proper investigation.”
Arguments of the Parties
For the Appellant: The counsel for the appellant argued that the complainant is a 33-year-old married woman with a 10-11-year-old son and is an advocate by profession. It was submitted that she voluntarily entered into a physical relationship knowing well her own marital status. The counsel contended that she could not have been “duped on the pretext of marriage” as she was not legally competent to marry. It was further argued that the relationship continued until January 2025, indicating consent.
For the State and Complainant: The State counsel argued that the offence was heinous. Relying on recovered WhatsApp conversations, the State contended that the appellant induced the complainant into a physical relationship in a “pre-planned manner” to satisfy his lust under a false pretext of marriage, knowing about her matrimonial dispute.
The counsel for the complainant submitted that the police investigation had found a prima facie case, leading to the filing of a charge sheet. It was argued that the appellant, being an advocate, understood the legal implications of his actions. The counsel urged that questions regarding the quality of consent should be decided at the trial stage.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court conducted a detailed analysis of Section 376(2)(n) IPC and the concept of “consent” vitiated by a “false promise of marriage.”
1. Legal Bar on Marriage: The Court emphasized that the complainant was not eligible for marriage on the dates the alleged offences occurred. The Court noted:
“Therefore, even for the sake of argument, if the contention of the respondent No.1 – State and the complainant-respondent No.3 is accepted that there indeed was a false promise of marriage based on which the accused-appellant indulged in sexual activities, such a promise would not be legally enforceable or even capable of being acted upon as the victim herself was not eligible for marriage…”
The Bench referred to Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which prohibits marriage if either party has a living spouse.
2. Consensual Relationship vs. Rape: The Court observed that the facts “unmistakably indicate towards a classic case of a consensual relationship turning acrimonious.” The Judges pointed out the contradiction in the complainant’s claims:
“…the complainant-respondent No.3, within the first initial meetings told the accused-appellant that she was a married woman with divorce proceedings pending before the Family Court. Therefore, in the same breath, she cannot be allowed to claim and allege that she was also coaxed by the accused-appellant into having a physical relationship with him on the false pretext of marriage as the two facts cannot stand together…”
3. Professional Status of the Complainant: The Court took note of the complainant’s profession, stating:
“It would be remiss not to mention, at the cost of repetition, that the complainant-respondent No.3 is herself an advocate and therefore she should have exercised her prudence and discretion before engaging the already burdened State machinery into a roving criminal litigation.”
4. Judicial Precedents: The Court relied on several precedents:
- Naim Ahamed vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023): Highlighted the distinction between a “false promise” (intention to deceive from the beginning) and a “breach of promise” (subsequent inability to fulfill a promise).
- Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra (2024): Reiterated that for a promise to amount to a misconception of fact, it must be false from the very beginning.
- Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2025): Observed that a mere break-up of a consensual relationship cannot initiate criminal proceedings.
- State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992): The Court invoked the principles for quashing FIRs, specifically where allegations do not disclose the commission of an offense.
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, did not amount to the offence of rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. The Bench held that allowing the prosecution to continue would be an abuse of the process of law.
“To convert every soured 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.”
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court, along with the FIR and charge sheet, was quashed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Pramod Kumar Navratna vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. [Number] of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4452 of 2025)
Coram: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
