The Supreme Court questioned the credibility of a woman DSP alleging rape on a Promise-To-Marry, noting that both parties were senior police officers capable of making informed choices. The Court also criticized the demand for a ₹5 crore settlement and referred the matter to mediation for resolution.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a case where a Lady Cop Superintendent of Police (SP) has been accused of rape on the Promise-To-Marry by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), both senior officers, both well-educated, both trained in law enforcement, and both fully aware of what consent means.
Yet, the relationship later turned into a criminal complaint and during the hearing, it surfaced that the complainant had sought a ₹5 crore settlement to “resolve” the matter. Yes, ₹5 crore.Not a breakup, not heartbreak but a price tag.
The accused SP, now married and raising two children, told the Court that such a figure was “beyond his capacity,” which, frankly, would be the case for most human beings not named Ambani.
Facts of the Case
The accused is a Superintendent of Police (SP) and the complainant is a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). Not teenagers, not unaware, not powerless. Both are trained officers who investigate consent and coercion for a living.
The two officers were posted in the same district in 2014, where they developed a long-term, voluntary, and private relationship. No allegation of force, threat, or intoxication during the relationship.
The complainant later alleged that her consent was obtained on the promise of marriage, a promise she says was withdrawn by the SP at a later stage. During earlier court-directed discussions to amicably resolve the matter, the complainant proposed a settlement of ₹5 crore for closing the case.
The accused SP informed the Court that he is now married, with two children, and that the ₹5 crore amount was financially impossible, calling it far beyond his capacity. The Supreme Court noted that this is not a situation involving vulnerable parties, but two senior law enforcement officers who fully understand legal consequences, agency, and consent.
Observing that continuing criminal proceedings may not benefit either side, the Court referred the matter to mediation and appointed Justice Gita Mittal (Retd.) to explore settlement terms that are realistic, lawful, and not transactional.
Court’s Findings
While hearing the case, the Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan made several pointed observations on the nature of the relationship and the later criminal allegation. The Court noted that both individuals are senior police officers one a Superintendent of Police (SP), the other a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). The Bench questioned the claim that the complainant was “induced” or “misled.”
Justice Pardiwala remarked: “Who would believe this? You are a DSP.”
The observation suggested that a trained law enforcement officer is fully capable of making independent decisions regarding consent. The Court pointed out that the relationship continued for several years, not under coercion, but out of mutual willingness, something that contradicts the claim of rape based on mere failure of marriage: The Bench implied that this was not a case where dominance, fear, or power imbalance dictated intimacy.
The Court also examined the fact that a ₹5 crore settlement had been sought when the parties were earlier directed to explore amicable resolution. The accused SP told the Court that such an amount was “beyond his capacity,” especially as he is now married and a father of two. Justice Viswanathan noted: “₹5 crores is a substantial amount.”
The Bench implied that when financial negotiation enters the picture, the criminal complaint must be viewed with greater caution and scrutiny.
On the allegation of rape on the pretext of marriage, the Court reiterated that criminal law cannot be triggered every time a relationship fails. Justice Pardiwala observed:
“Not every failed relationship amounts to rape. The intention at the time of the relationship is what matters.”
This aligns with settled principles that:
- To constitute rape on false promise of marriage,
- Deception must be present at the very beginning,
- Not developed later with change of circumstances.
The Court concluded that prolonged litigation may be harmful to both parties, especially given their professional responsibilities and public positions. The Bench therefore directed that the matter be referred to mediation, appointing Justice Gita Mittal (Retd.) to help explore a resolution: Bench stated:
“Whatever might have happened in the past, in the peculiar facts of this case, fighting with each other is not going to be in the interest of the parties.”
Explanatory Table of Sections / Legal Principles
| Law / Principle | Section / Citation | Explanation / Relevance |
| Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Section 376 | Covers rape. The Court noted that consensual sexual relationships between adults, especially long-term ones, cannot be retroactively criminalized merely because the relationship ends or marriage does not follow. |
| Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Promise of Marriage Jurisprudence | The Court reiterated that rape on false promise of marriage applies only when the promise was false at the very inception. If the relationship was consensual and emotional, and the plan to marry later changed, it does not constitute rape. |
| Supreme Court Precedent | Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 | Consent obtained on a promise of marriage is not rape unless the promise was made in bad faith with no intention to marry from the start. Cited to show that break-up ≠ offence. |
| Supreme Court Precedent | Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46 | Established that adult relationships driven by mutual affection cannot be criminalized when marriage negotiations fail. |
| Concept of Consent | Judicial Interpretation | The Court highlighted that both parties were senior police officers, trained in law & procedure, thereby fully aware of their agency and consent negating the narrative of coercion or manipulation. |
| Criminal Law Misuse Safeguard | Doctrine Against Abuse of Process | The Court stressed criminal law cannot be used as a weapon to settle emotional scores or punish a failed relationship. |
| Alternative Dispute Resolution | Mediation Ordered | Recognizing the personal nature of the dispute, the Court appointed Justice Gita Mittal (Retd.) to mediate, emphasizing closure over conflict. |
Case Details
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench / Judges: Hon’ble Justice JB Pardiwala & Hon’ble Justice KV Viswanathan
- Nature of Allegation: Alleged rape on the pretext of marriage
- Accused: Superintendent of Police (SP)
- Complainant: Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP)
- Initial Proceedings: Relationship began while both were posted in the same district in 2014
- Reason Cited for Marriage Refusal: Horoscope (Kundali) mismatch
- High Court Status: Patna High Court quashed the FIR, holding the relationship to be consensual
- Supreme Court Proceedings: Complainant challenged the quashing before the Supreme Court
- Key Observations of the Supreme Court: Relationship was between two adults of equal authority, implying consensual participation
- Mediator Appointed: Justice Gita Mittal (Retd.), Former Chief Justice, J&K High Court
- Next Step Ordered by The Supreme Court: Parties directed to enter mediation to explore amicable settlement
- Key Legal Consideration: Whether a long-term consensual relationship can be treated as rape merely because marriage did not materialize
- Question in Issue: Whether a failed consensual relationship between two senior police officers can be criminally prosecuted as rape based solely on a later withdrawal of a promise to marry due to horoscope mismatch.
- Current Status / Result: Matter referred to mediation. No coercive action directed at this stage.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
The evil of illicit relationship is no more a sin but has now become an accepted normal with people breaking away from family elders, morality, belief of sin and retribution. Words like adultery which meant relationship outside marriage are found no more in the dictionary of law. People are behaving like animals without any hesitation jumping into beds of carnal deviancy. Are Indian societies who claim to have become as modern as the Western ones ready to pay for their sins in the long run? The law absolves itself when it comes to handling such cases because it has not created or used any basic principles of awarding punishment.
Now there are more illegitimate children born from the wrong side of the blanket left out to survive in the nation ruled by criminals. Lawfully married couples are becoming childless. Is the society cursed for the sins it encourages?
Basith ji, point well noted.
The real problem isn’t just moral decline — it’s how our laws have no accountability when relationships break down. Today, men are being jailed, humiliated, and financially ruined on the basis of one-sided accusations and emotional claims. False 498A, DV and “promise-to-marry” cases have become tools of pressure, not justice.
We need gender-neutral laws and equal responsibility for both partners. If society wants strong families, then the legal system must stop rewarding manipulation and punishing only men.
This is exactly why Men’s Rights activism is necessary today.