In Ravish Singh Rana vs State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court of India set aside an FIR under Section 376 IPC and other provisions, ruling that a long-standing live-in relationship between two adults gives rise to a presumption of valid consent. The Court held that prosecution for rape could not be sustained solely on the basis of non-fulfilment of a marriage promise when there was no allegation that physical relations were contingent upon that promise.
Background:
The case arose from FIR No. 482 of 2023 lodged at Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, by the second respondent. She alleged that she entered a live-in relationship with the appellant, Ravish Singh Rana, after they met on Facebook in 2021. The FIR accused the appellant of establishing a physical relationship under the false promise of marriage and of sexual assault on 18.11.2023. The FIR was registered under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 IPC.
The appellant sought to quash the FIR before the Uttarakhand High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), but the High Court dismissed the application.
Appellant’s Submissions:
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that both parties were adults and had lived together under one roof for over two years. A mutual settlement agreement was signed on 19.11.2023 acknowledging their intent to marry and their consensual relationship. The appellant contended that the FIR was false and lodged to blackmail him and his family.
Respondents’ Submissions:
Counsel for the respondents submitted that the agreement itself mentioned legal action could be taken if the marriage was not solemnised. Since the marriage had not taken place, the FIR was justified. The counsel argued that the physical relationship was based on a false promise of marriage, which invalidated the complainant’s consent. Reliance was placed on the precedent Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608.
Court’s Analysis:
The Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra reviewed the factual matrix and held that the relationship between the parties was clearly a live-in arrangement lasting over two years. The Court found no allegation in the FIR that physical relations were solely induced by a promise to marry.
Quoting Deepak Gulati vs State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 18 SCC 517, the Court reaffirmed that mere breach of a promise to marry does not amount to a false promise unless it is proven that the accused never intended to marry at the time of making the promise.
The Court observed:
“If two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences.”
Further, the Court stated:
“The allegation that such relationship was entered because there was a promise of marriage is in the circumstances unworthy of acceptance, particularly, when there is no allegation that such physical relationship would not have been established had there been no promise to marry.”
The bench also noted that the 19.11.2023 settlement agreement—which acknowledged love and commitment between the parties—contradicted the allegation of forced sexual relations on 18.11.2023.
Decision:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings, terming them an abuse of the process of the court. It also set aside the impugned judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court dated 11.12.2024.
