‘Consent demolishes rape case’: Supreme Court quashes FIR against Haryana man amid ‘promise to marry’ claim

Case collapses on its own

• The court allowed the appeal filed by the man, setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to quash the First Information Report (FIR).
• The court found that even if the allegations in the FIR were taken at face value, they failed to disclose the essential ingredients of rape, particularly the absence of free consent.

The court dismantled the prosecution’s case on multiple fronts:

Consensual, continuous relationship

• The relationship is said to have commenced in August 2023 and is said to have continued till March 2024 – obviously and admittedly consensual.
• The court noted that the complainant’s own version reflected active participation, not submission under deception or fear.

No fraud, no coercion

• The bench found no material suggesting inducement, misrepresentation, or threat – key elements required to vitiate consent under criminal law.

Marriage promise ‘implausible’

• A critical factor was the complainant’s personal circumstances – she was already married and a mother of two children.
• There was no claim of divorce or legal separation.
• The court held that in such a scenario, the allegation of a genuine promise of marriage loses credibility, making the charge of deception untenable.

Suspicious timing of FIR

• The FIR was registered on March 28, 2024, after the accused’s marriage and following a quarrel days later when the complainant disclosed her pregnancy.
• The marriage of the appellant took place on March 12, 2024, after which the FIR was registered alleging a quarrel on March 15, 2024, three days after the marriage.
• This sequence, the court indicated, undermined the prosecution’s claim of a bona fide grievance.

Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran found no material suggesting inducement, misrepresentation, or threat – key elements required to vitiate consent under criminal law.

DNA evidence irrelevant

• Additional Advocate General Alok Sangwan, appearing for the respondent, argued that the matter should proceed until a pending DNA report confirmed paternity of the child (who has since died).
• The AAG contended that the trial had not commenced, and the Forensic Science Laboratory report of the child’s DNA profile test was pending.
• The court rejected this contention outright – even if paternity were established, it would not negate prior consent.
• “We are of the opinion that there is no reason to wait for the FSL report since even if the child, who passed away, is found to be of the appellant,” the top court said.
• The case hinged on how the relationship began and continued, not its biological consequences.

Allegations

• According to the FIR, the complainant, employed at a massage parlour, met the accused when he visited as a customer.
• A physical relationship began in August 2023 and continued till March 2024.
• She alleged that she consented to the relationship on the basis of a promise of marriage.
• The complaint was filed only after the accused married another woman on March 12, 2024.
• The FIR invoked serious charges under Section 376(2)(n) (repeated sexual assault on the same woman) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Reaffirming legal principles

• Relying on its earlier ruling in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, the court reiterated that consent must be real and vitiated by deception to constitute rape.
• It said that the breach of promise to marry, without evidence of fraudulent intent from the outset, does not amount to rape.
• Courts must guard against the misuse of criminal law to settle personal or emotional disputes, said the Supreme Court.

Defence’s arguments

• Advocate Romil Pathak, counsel for the appellant man, submitted that he had a consensual relationship with the complainant woman and later married another on March 12, 2024, following which the complaint was raised.
• The counsel said that the complainant was married and had two children and there was no reason for the appellant to extend a promise of marriage, which in any event would not have been possible.

Final verdict

• Setting aside the high court’s order, the Supreme Court quashed the March 28, 2024 FIR registered.
• The top court also terminated all criminal proceedings.
• Cancelled the appellant’s bail bonds as a consequence of the quashing.

Why this judgment matters

• This ruling adds to a growing body of jurisprudence where courts are closely scrutinising “rape on promise to marry” cases.
• It distinguishes genuine sexual exploitation from consensual relationships that later collapse.
• The message is unambiguous – criminal law cannot be stretched to penalise heartbreak, nor can consent be retrospectively withdrawn to fit a criminal narrative.

Why Supreme Court quashed man’s rape conviction using ‘sixth sense’

Last year, the Supreme Court quashed the rape conviction and sentence of a Madhya Pradesh man using a “sixth sense” stating that it sensed in earlier hearings of the case that the case could be resolved by bringing the parties together, an intervention that ultimately resulted in their marriage on July 22, 2025.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing case of a man accused of sexually exploiting a woman on a false promise of marriage, after the two married each other during the pendency of the appeal.

“This is owing to the fact that when the matter came up before this Court by assailing the rejection of suspension of sentence by the High Court, on a consideration of the facts of the case, we had a sixth sense that the appellant and the respondent prosecutrix could be brought together once again if they decided to marry each other,” the bench said on December 5.