Supreme Court Quashes Old Rape Case Filed After Breakup

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR filed by a woman against her ex-boyfriend after their relationship ended. She had accused him of rape under POCSO, claiming she was a minor when the relationship began. However, the Court found that there was no proof, and the FIR was filed years later — only after the man refused to marry her. The Court said the case was just a misuse of the law.

Brief Facts of the Case

• Kunal Chatterjee was in a relationship with a girl who later filed a rape case against him under the IPC and POCSO laws.
• She claimed she was only 15 when they got into the relationship and agreed based on his promise to marry her.
• Even after becoming an adult, she continued the relationship, but later filed a complaint when the marriage did not happen.
• She also included his parents and uncle in the case.
• The Calcutta High Court had already dropped charges against his family, but continued the case against Kunal.
• Kunal went to the Supreme Court asking for the FIR against him to be cancelled too.

Laws Involved in the Case

• Section 376 IPC – Rape
• Section 417 IPC – Cheating
• Section 506 IPC – Threatening someone
• Section 34 IPC – Common intention
• Section 6 of POCSO Act – Sexual assault on a minor
• Section 482 CrPC – High Court’s power to cancel false cases

Arguments by Both Sides

Kunal’s Side:

• The relationship was mutual and continued even after she became an adult.
• No proof, no medical reports, and the FIR was filed more than 3 years later.
• She only filed the case when marriage didn’t happen.

State and Complainant:

• A minor’s consent doesn’t count in law, so it was rape under POCSO.
• She had trusted him based on the promise of marriage.
• Delay in FIR was due to trauma and pressure.

What the Court Said

• The girl admitted the relationship was consensual.
• FIR was filed 3+ years after the alleged incident—no medical or forensic proof was given.
• Just a breakup doesn’t make it rape. The law is clear: if a relationship is mutual, based on a genuine bond, and the man later refuses to marry, that alone doesn’t make it a crime.
• The Court referred to earlier cases (Prithivirajan 2025, Pramod Pawar 2019, Maheshwar Tigga 2020) to support its view.
• Said the case seemed like a misuse of legal process and should not have been allowed to continue.

Conclusion of the Judgment

• The Supreme Court cancelled the FIR and all criminal charges against Kunal.
• Said this was a clear example of misuse of the law.
• Case closed.

Comments from the author of this website

Let me say this without sugarcoating it—cases like this are exactly why so many men today live in silent fear.

As I’ve seen this pattern far too often. Two people fall in love, they willingly enter a relationship, and for years everything is fine. But the moment the man says “no” to marriage, suddenly he becomes a rapist. Suddenly, what was mutual yesterday becomes “rape” today.

This case wasn’t about justice—it was about revenge. The complaint was filed years after the relationship started. No medical reports. No immediate police complaint. Just a one-sided FIR lodged after things didn’t go the way the woman wanted. And not just against the man—but his parents and uncle too. Entire families are being criminalized for personal disputes. Is this what our justice system was built for?

Here’s the harsh truth no one wants to say out loud—laws meant to protect women are being used as weapons. And when they’re misused, it’s men who are thrown under the bus. You lose your job. Your reputation. Your mental peace. You spend years in courts trying to prove what you didn’t do. And even if you’re found innocent, society never lets you forget the accusation.

This is not just a legal issue. It’s a social tragedy. We’ve created a system where men are guilty until proven innocent — and sometimes, even proving innocence isn’t enough to clean the stain of an allegation.

I’m not against strong laws to protect genuine victims. But I am firmly against a system where false cases go unchecked, where a breakup turns into a criminal case, and where men’s voices are dismissed before they’re even heard.

This case is not rare — it’s routine now. And it’s destroying lives. We need urgent reforms. We need gender-neutral laws. We need safeguards to ensure that people don’t misuse serious criminal provisions for personal revenge.

Because justice is not justice if it protects one side and punishes the other without cause.

Final Thoughts

This judgment is a reminder of how important it is to differentiate between genuine criminal cases and personal disputes wrongly turned into criminal complaints. Relationships can end, promises can break — but that doesn’t always mean a crime was committed.

The justice system should stay alert to such misuse. At the same time, society must also learn to treat failed relationships as private matters — not courtroom battles.

Safeguards are urgently needed to prevent people from misusing strong laws, especially in sensitive areas like relationships, consent, and marriage.

Read Complete Judgement Here