The Supreme Court of India has quashed a criminal case alleging sexual exploitation on the pretext of marriage, holding that criminal liability cannot be fastened when parties willingly engaged in a prolonged consensual relationship. A Bench comprising Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the criminal proceedings pending before a Bilaspur court, observing that a failed marriage proposal following years of courtship does not vitiate consent and that criminal prosecution cannot be converted into a strong-arm tactic.
Background of the Case
The case arose out of First Information Report (FIR) No. 191 of 2025 registered at Sirgitti Police Station, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, based on a First Information Statement lodged by the second respondent. The complainant, an engineering graduate preparing for competitive examinations, met the appellant, Martanda Singh, at an academy where both were enrolled.
The two fell in love, and marriage discussions subsequently took place between their families. On the mutual understanding that they would marry, the appellant began visiting the complainant’s house, where she resided with her mother and brother. During periods when nobody was at home, they entered into a physical relationship that continued unabated for approximately three years. The complainant specifically alleged that the appellant visited her house whenever her mother was out of station. Addressing this, the Court noted that information regarding the mother’s departure was obviously communicated by the complainant herself, as the appellant could not be presumed to have mounted constant surveillance on her residence.
The relationship eventually ended, and the marriage proposals mooted by both families fell through. Following the fallout, the complainant initiated criminal proceedings, alleging that the appellant refused to marry her after sexually exploiting her on the pretext of marriage. She also asserted that the appellant had agreed to marry her before the Mahila Thana Counselling Centre, Bilaspur, but failed to honor the undertaking.
Submissions Before the Court
During the hearing, Dr. Rajesh Pandey, learned Counsel, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Sri Vinayak Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, represented the State of Chhattisgarh.
Although the second respondent was duly served through the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Sirgitti Police Station, no one entered an appearance on her behalf.
Precedents Cited
In examining whether criminal liability could be fastened on the appellant, the Bench referred to the principles established in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675, quoting paragraph 24:
“24. Hence, it is evident that there must be adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time i.e. at the initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim. There may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances. The ‘failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does not always amount to misconception of fact. In order to come within the meaning of the term ‘misconception of fact’, the fact must have an immediate relevance’. Section 90 IPC cannot be called into aid in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and fasten criminal liability on the other, unless the court is assured of the fact that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended to marry her.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Applying this legal standard to the facts, the Bench observed that the alleged undertaking given before the counselling centre “would have been on the threat of criminal prosecution; which even otherwise is unenforceable.” The Court further remarked that such an undertaking “cannot be alleged to be a promise to marry, since by then admittedly there was a courtship of three years, when the 2nd respondent admittedly had permitted physical relationship. The consent obviously was not on coercion or misrepresentation.”
Addressing the threshold of consent under criminal law, the Bench observed:
“We cannot but reiterate the proposition as enumerated in the above extract that the consent under fear or misconception cannot be loosely inferred to fasten criminal liability on one of the parties when both admittedly, had a consensual relationship and the other party willingly permitted physical relationship.”
Upon reviewing the complaint, the Court found no evidence of an initial false promise, noting that the allegations were an afterthought:
“Even on a bare reading of the complaint, there is no clear assurance or a promise made of marriage, since the specific allegation is that they entered into a physical relationship after courtship, fully knowing the consequences, but alleged to be under the pretext of marriage; clearly an afterthought.”
The Court also took into account the complainant’s background and her conduct during the dispute, highlighting her statement that she would drop the charges if the appellant married her. Rejecting such leverage, the Bench held:
“The 2nd respondent is a well-educated woman, who entered into a consensual relationship and carried it on, for three years, allegedly on the pretext of marriage, which never fructified. She categorically states that she would drop the charge, if he marries her. A criminal prosecution cannot be reduced to a strong-arm tactic.”
Concluding its assessment of culpability, the Court ruled:
“We are unable to find any criminal culpability on the appellant who entered into a consensual relationship with the 2nd respondent, which consent cannot be said to be coerced or obtained on a misrepresentation.”
The Decision
Finding no ground to justify the continuation of criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
The Court quashed Charge Sheet No. 199 of 2025 dated June 17, 2025, filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, which had matured into Sessions Case No. 216 of 2025 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. The Bench directed that all proceedings in Sessions Case No. 216 of 2025 stand closed, and rejected all pending applications.
Case Details
Case Title: Martanda Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 4722 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1582 of 2026)
Bench: Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date: October 01, 2026
