The Supreme Court has ruled that a promise of marriage made to a woman who is already married has no legal value. The Court quashed a rape case, holding that failed or bitter consensual relationships cannot be turned into criminal cases.
False Rape Case: The Supreme Court of India has once again clarified an important legal principle while quashing a rape case filed against a Chhattisgarh-based advocate. The case involved allegations of repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code on the ground of a false promise of marriage made to a married woman.
The Court made it clear that such a promise has no legal standing and cannot be used to criminalise a consensual relationship between adults.
The Court held that a promise to marry a woman with a subsisting marriage is void in law and cannot sustain a repeated rape charge under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.
The Supreme Court on Thursday (February 5) quashed criminal proceedings against a Chhattisgarh advocate accused of repeatedly raping a married woman colleague on the false promise of marriage.
While examining the matter, a Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan reiterated settled law on consent and false promise of marriage.
The Court observed:
“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 Bench was dealing with an appeal against a Chhattisgarh High Court order which had refused to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings against the accused advocate.
The complainant in the case was a 33-year-old advocate, a married woman and a mother, whose divorce proceedings were still pending. She alleged that the accused developed a physical relationship with her from September 2022 by assuring her of marriage. According to her complaint, the relationship continued till January 2025, during which she became pregnant and was allegedly forced to undergo an abortion. After a confrontation with the accused’s family allegedly turned hostile, she lodged an FIR in February 2025 under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, which deals with rape committed repeatedly on the same woman.
After the High Court declined to interfere, the accused approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
Allowing the appeal, Justice Nagarathna, who authored the judgment, noted that the complainant was legally married throughout the alleged period of the relationship. Her divorce petition was still pending, and therefore, under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, she was not legally capable of marrying another person. Any promise of marriage made to her during this period was legally impossible to perform from the very beginning.
The Court categorically stated:
“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.”
The Supreme Court found no material to suggest that the accused had made a false promise of marriage with dishonest intention from the start. Instead, the facts pointed towards a consensual relationship between two educated adults who were fully aware of each other’s circumstances, including the complainant’s existing marriage.
Summing up the situation, the Court observed:
“In our opinion, the facts of the present case clearly indicate a consensual relationship gone sour whereas both the parties should have exercised restraint and should have refrained from involving the State into their personal relationship turning rancour.”
The judgment also reflects a growing judicial concern about the misuse of serious criminal provisions in personal disputes. The Court implicitly highlighted how criminal law, especially rape provisions, should not be used as a tool to settle failed relationships, as such cases cause irreversible damage to the accused and burden an already overworked justice system.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR, the chargesheet, and all consequential proceedings against the accused advocate, bringing the criminal case to an end.
Explanatory Table of Laws and Sections Involved
| Law / Statute | Section | Explanation | How It Applied in This Case |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 375 | Defines what constitutes the offence of rape, including situations where consent is obtained under misconception of fact | The Court examined whether consent was vitiated due to an alleged false promise of marriage |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 376 | Provides punishment for rape | Considered only if ingredients of rape under Section 375 are satisfied |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 376(2)(n) | Enhanced punishment where rape is committed repeatedly on the same woman | FIR was registered under this provision, but the Court found it inapplicable |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 5(i) | A marriage is void if either party has a living spouse at the time of marriage | The complainant was legally married, making any promise of marriage void from the beginning |
| Special Marriage Act, 1954 | Section 4(i) | Prohibits marriage if either party has a living spouse | Reinforced the legal impossibility of marriage during subsistence of an earlier marriage |
| Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 | Section 183 | Provision relating to recording of statements during investigation | The High Court relied on the complainant’s statement under this provision |
| Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 | Section 192 | Filing of final report by the investigating officer | Chargesheet No.269/2025 was filed under this provision |
| Constitution of India | Article 226 | Power of High Courts to issue writs | Used by the accused to seek quashing of FIR before the High Court |
| Code of Criminal Procedure (principle applied) | Section 482 | Inherent powers of High Court to prevent abuse of process | Though procedural law changed, principles were relied upon |
| Supreme Court Precedent | State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal (1992) | Lays down categories where FIRs can be quashed | Applied to hold that the prosecution was an abuse of process |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 90 | Consent given under misconception of fact | Examined to decide whether consent was legally invalid |
Case Details
- Case Title: PKN vs State of Chhattisgarh & Others
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4452 of 2025)
- Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 124
- Date of Judgment: 05 February 2026
- Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
- Counsels:
- For Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Mr. Jugul Kishor Gupta, Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Mr. Ankit Borker, Mr. Ankit Tiwari
- For Respondent(s): Mr. Praneet Pranav, Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Ms. Ayushi Pandey, Ms. Aswathi M.k., Mr. Rishabh
- Impugned Order: Order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in WPCR No.117/2025
- Final Outcome: FIR No.213/2025 dated 06.02.2025, Chargesheet No.269/2025, and Sessions Case No.89/2025 were quashed. Appeal allowed.
Key Takeaways
- A promise of marriage made to a legally married woman has no legal value and cannot be used to brand a consensual relationship as rape.
- Consent between two aware, educated adults cannot be retroactively criminalised just because the relationship later turns bitter.
- Section 376(2)(n) IPC is meant for genuine cases of repeated sexual violence, not failed personal relationships.
- Misuse of rape laws causes irreversible damage to innocent men and clogs the criminal justice system.
- Courts are now clearly drawing a line between real sexual crimes and private disputes being weaponised through criminal law.
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.