Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-005001-005001 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 19350/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (sexual offences; inherent powers under BNSS) |
| Questions of Law | Whether multiple consensual sexual encounters over an extended relationship, without deception at inception, can amount to “repeated rape” under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and whether FIR/chargesheet should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The SC held that “repeatedly” under Section 376(2)(n) IPC requires separate acts induced by coercion or deception directly linked to each act; prolonged consensual intimacy without evidence of fraudulent promise at the inception cannot be retroactively vitiated into rape; courts may infer consent from the record; continuation of prosecution in such facts is abuse of process. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Respondent No.2, still married, met appellant‐advocate in 2022, developed a close relationship over three years, engaging in repeated sexual intercourse with aborted pregnancies; no complaints until appellant refused to pay ₹1.5 lakhs; FIR under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 507 IPC filed 31.08.2024; High Court refused quashing; SC found consensual relationship. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Follows |
|
| Distinguishes | Ganga Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Section 376(2)(n) IPC demands distinct, separate acts of sexual assault, each linked to coercion or deception.
- Prolonged consensual intimacy cannot be recharacterised as repeated rape because a promise to marry fails.
- Courts may infer a defence of consent from the record, even if not expressly pleaded.
- Delay in FIR and contextual history (e.g., aborted pregnancies, voluntary meetings) are material in quashing petitions.
- High Court’s refusal to quash on absence of express consent plea is unsustainable when record shows voluntariness.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Statutory meaning: Section 376(2)(n) IPC enhances punishment for rape “repeatedly” on same woman; “repeatedly” means separate transactions.
- Deception test: Following Mahesh Damu and Deepak Gulati, false promise vitiates consent only if it alone induced each act.
- Consensual breakup: Per Prashant, a consensual relationship that ends cannot be retroactively branded rape.
- Long-term willingness: Rajnish Singh confirms voluntary long-term relationships preclude Section 376 prosecutions without new coercion.
- Quashing jurisdiction: Under Section 528 BNSS (in pari materia to Section 482 CrPC, per Bhajan Lal), FIR/chargesheet quashed if allegations, taken at face value, do not prima facie disclose the offence or amount to abuse of process.
- Application: Record showed voluntary meetings over three years, no protest or deception at outset, delay in FIR—no prima facie rape; quashed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- No evidence of non-consensual acts; relationship voluntary for three years.
- Complaint lodged only after ₹1.5 lakhs demand was refused; abuse of process.
- False implication; no divorce decree in complainant’s prior marriage.
Respondent-State
- FIR discloses cognisable offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 507 IPC; merits to be tested at trial.
- Veracity of allegations is not for quashing petition.
Respondent No.2 (via Amicus)
- Supported State; no fresh merit in appeal.
Factual Background
- Respondent No.2, married with minor child, separated from husband, sought maintenance in 2020.
- Introduced to appellant, an advocate, in January 2022; over three years they met frequently and engaged in sexual relations leading to pregnancies and abortions.
- No complaints or charges until May 2024, when appellant declined a ₹1.5 lakhs demand and threatened the complainant.
- FIR No. 294/2024 registered on 31.08.2024 under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 507 IPC; charge-sheet filed 25.10.2024.
- High Court refused quashing; SC allowed quashing under Section 528 BNSS.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 376 IPC: Defines rape and enhanced punishment under sub-section (2)(n) for repeated offences.
- Section 90 IPC: Misconception of fact; false promise must directly induce consent at inception.
- Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS: Inherent power to quash if allegations don’t prima facie constitute offence or amount to abuse of process (Bhajan Lal parameters).
- No constitutional provisions invoked.
Procedural Innovations
- Recognition that consent can be inferred from the FIR and accompanying record, without express plea.
- Application of Section 528 BNSS to quash prosecutions for sexual offences where prima facie case is absent.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed