Four years of a voluntary relationship, no complaint, and full awareness of each other’s marital status—yet a rape case was filed after things fell apart. The Supreme Court stepped in and exposed the legal line between a failed relationship and a criminal offence.
NEW DELHI: In a crucial judgment delivered by Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Manmohan, the Supreme Court of India set aside criminal proceedings in a rape case based on allegations of a false promise of marriage, reinforcing the legal distinction between a failed relationship and a criminal offence.
The case arose from an FIR where the woman alleged that the accused had assured her of marriage and, on that basis, established a physical relationship.
However, the Court noted that both parties were already married to different spouses and were fully aware of each other’s personal circumstances. Despite this, they continued a relationship for several years, travelling together, staying together, and maintaining a physical relationship from 2017 to 2020.
A key factor that weighed with the Court was the delay in filing the complaint. The alleged incident of force dated back to 2017, yet no complaint was made for nearly four years, during which the relationship continued without interruption. This factual background raised serious doubt about whether the consent was actually obtained under any misconception.
After analysing the material, the Court made its position clear:
“We are of the opinion that this was not a case where a promise of marriage resulted in appellant deceiving the complainant. Parties have happily cohabited together between 2017 and 2020 and, thereafter, the relationship soured.”
The judgment then addressed the core legal issue—whether every failed promise to marry can amount to rape. The Court clarified that the law does not criminalise broken relationships unless there is clear evidence that the promise was false from the very beginning. Reiterating settled law, the Court observed:
“It is pertinent to note that there is a difference between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused.”
This distinction is critical because criminal liability arises only when the promise was dishonest at inception, not when circumstances later change.
The Court further warned against misuse of criminal law in such situations, stating:
“So, it would be a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the offence under Section 376.”
This observation highlights the growing judicial concern over converting relationship disputes into criminal cases.
Another important aspect clarified was the requirement of direct linkage between the promise and the physical relationship. The Court held that unless the relationship is clearly shown to be based solely on the alleged promise, the offence cannot be made out. In this context, it observed that individuals may enter relationships for multiple personal reasons, not necessarily tied to marriage.
Taking all circumstances into account, the Supreme Court concluded that the case did not meet the legal threshold required to sustain charges of rape. It therefore quashed the proceedings, reaffirming that criminal law cannot be invoked to penalise consensual relationships that later turn sour.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Section 376(2)(n) IPC | Punishes repeated rape where consent is absent or vitiated | Alleged repeated sexual relations, but Court found a long-term consensual relationship, weakening the rape charge |
| Section 377 IPC | Covers non-consensual unnatural sexual acts | Allegation made, but continued voluntary relationship reduced credibility of coercion claim |
| Section 506 IPC | Addresses criminal intimidation or threats | No substantial independent evidence; not central to Court’s reasoning |
| Section 375 IPC (Consent Principle) | Defines rape and states consent under misconception is invalid | Core issue; Court held no proof that consent was obtained through a false promise from the beginning |
| Section 482 CrPC | Empowers courts to quash proceedings to prevent misuse of law | Supreme Court exercised power to quash case as ingredients of offence were not made out |
| Article 136 Constitution | Allows appeal to Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition | Case reached Supreme Court through SLP, leading to final relief for the accused |
Case Details
- Case Title: Shaileshbhai Govindbhai Makwana vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Case Type: Criminal Appeal (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2260/2026)
- Date of Judgment: 20 April 2026
- Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan | Justice Manmohan
- Counsels:
- For Appellant: Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate
- For State: Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- A failed relationship cannot be weaponised into a rape case unless there is clear proof of fraud from the very beginning.
- Long-term consensual relationships seriously weaken allegations of “false promise of marriage.”
- The law clearly distinguishes between a genuine promise that later fails and a dishonest promise made only to exploit.
- Delayed complaints after years of continued intimacy raise serious questions on credibility and intent.
- Criminal law cannot be used as a pressure tactic in personal relationship disputes against men.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
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.
