The Supreme Court recently quashed a criminal case against a Chattisgarh advocate who had been accused of raping a married woman on the false pretext of marriage. The judgement was delivered by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Background:

The complainant (Respondent No.3), who is an advocate, has been married since 2011 and has a son. A divorce case filed by her husband was dismissed, and his appeal is still pending before the High Court.

In September 2022, she met the accused, also an advocate, at a social event and they became close.She told him that her divorce case was pending, and they stayed in regular contact.

She alleged that on 18.09.2022, the accused raped her on the pretext of marriage and assured her that he would marry her. According to her, he continued to have physical relations with her while repeatedly promising marriage.

She further alleged that when she became pregnant, the accused avoided marriage and forced her to undergo an abortion.

On 27.01.2025, she claimed that the accused and his family assaulted and threatened her when she confronted them. Based on these allegations she filed an F.I.R.

The accused denied the allegations, claimed that he was being harassed by the complainant, and obtained anticipatory bail from the High Court, which observed that the relationship appeared consensual.

Defence Arguments:

The counsel for the accused submitted that the complainant is a 31 year old woman with a 10 year old son and was fully aware of her own well being, so it cannot be said that she was deceived on the pretext of marriage, especially since she is also an advocate.

It was argued that the complainant entered into physical relations with the accused voluntarily and therefore the case cannot amount to rape.

It was further alleged that the accused himself was a victim of the complainant’s actions, as she was blackmailing him and threatening him with suicide.

Court’s Legal Findings:

The Court clarified that not every sexual relationship based on a promise of marriage amounts to rape. A clear distinction must be made between:

• a false promise to marry made from the beginning with no intention to fulfil it, and

• a relationship that later fails due to circumstances.

• An offence under Section 376 IPC arises only when the promise of marriage was dishonest from the very start and was the sole reason for obtaining consent.

In this case, the material on record showed that the parties were in a consensual relationship which later turned sour. The complainant was already married and had a child at the time of the alleged acts, meaning she was legally incapable of marrying the accused. Therefore, any alleged promise of marriage was legally unenforceable and incapable of being acted upon.

Because of this, the essential ingredients of Section 376(2)(n) IPC were not satisfied and the continuation of criminal proceedings was held unsustainable.

Court’s Observations:

The Court said:

“It has been time and again settled by this Court, that the mere fact that the parties indulged in physical relations pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case. An offence under Section 375 of the IPC could only be made out, if promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations without having any intent of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning and that such false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations.”,

The court further observed:

“The law prohibits bigamous unions and therefore disallows parties from entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of their first marriage. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the view that the complainant-respondent No.3, who herself is an advocate, was oblivious to the said settled position of law and hence was duped and induced by the accused appellant into having sexual relations with him on different occasions on the pretext of marriage especially when both the parties were cognizant of the marital status of the complainant respondent No.3.,”

Final Order and Relief Granted:

“In view of the aforesaid discussion and keeping the judicial dicta laid down by this Court in mind we set aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2025 of the High Court and consequently, FIR No.213/2025 dated 06.02.2025 registered with Sarkanda Police Station at district Bilaspur and the Chargesheet No.269/2025, and the consequent proceedings arising out of the said proceedings in Sessions Case No.89/2025 are quashed”.

Case Details:

P N VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OTHERS