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 and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents |
| Type of Law | Criminal law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Supreme Court held that Section 376(2)(n) IPC applies only where repeated rape incidents occur under coercion, deceit or captivity, not in prolonged consensual relationships that later break down. Consent given on assurance of marriage must be directly traceable to an early false promise, not inferred from subsequent intimacy. Broken relationships misusing criminal process are abuse; inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS permit quashing where no prima facie offence is made out under the statute. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
From March 2022 to May 2024, the appellant (an advocate) and respondent No.2 developed a personal relationship, engaged in consensual sexual acts on multiple occasions, and had three pregnancies terminated. No complaint was lodged until August 2024, when the appellant allegedly refused to pay ₹1.5 lakh. FIR under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 507 IPC was registered on 31.08.2024. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Distinguishes | Ganga Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 7 SCC 278 (on requirement of express consent plea) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that prolonged consensual sexual relationships cannot be retrospectively branded as repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC merely because they fail to culminate in marriage.
- Emphasises that promise of marriage must be shown to have induced consent at the relationship’s inception to vitiate consent under Section 90 IPC.
- Endorses exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash FIR and chargesheet where prima facie no offence is made out.
- Warns against misuse of criminal process in broken relationships, calling it an abuse of court machinery.
- Provides binding authority for quashing petitions in sexual offence cases lacking evidence of coercion, deceit or forcible acts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Interpretation of Section 376(2)(n) IPC: “repeatedly” means separate acts under coercion, deceit or captivity, not repeated consensual intimacy.
- Application of Mahesh Damu and Prashant: false promise of marriage must be shown at the very outset with no other motive for intimacy.
- Consensual relationship vitiation: long-term intimacy without objection or complaint negates absence of consent.
- Abuse of process: prosecuting failed personal disputes trivialises rape and stigmatizes the accused.
- Section 528 BNSS powers: under Bhajan Lal parameters, quashing appropriate where allegations, even accepted fully, do not prima facie constitute the offence charged.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- Relationship was consensual over three years with no complaints.
- No divorce decree in respondent’s first marriage; relationship lacked legal foundation from the start.
- FIR was lodged only after appellant refused to pay ₹1.5 lakh—an abuse of process.
Respondent-State
- Allegations disclose cognizable offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 507 IPC.
- Veracity of appellant’s defence is for trial, not threshold quashing.
Respondent No.2 (Complainant)
- Appellant induced physical relations by false promise to marry.
- Repeated breaches of promise and threats justified rape charges.
Factual Background
Respondent No.2, married with a child and separated since May 2020, met the appellant advocate in January 2022 during her maintenance proceedings. They exchanged messages, met frequently between March 2022 and May 2024, and engaged in sexual relations on multiple occasions, resulting in three terminated pregnancies. No complaint was lodged until August 2024, when after a dispute over payment, FIR No. 294/2024 was registered for offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), and 507 IPC.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 376(2)(n) IPC: enhanced punishment for repeated rape acts—requires separate incidents under coercion, deceit or captivity.
- Section 90 IPC: “misconception of fact” by false promise of marriage—consent vitiated only if promise made in bad faith from inception.
- Section 528 BNSS (inherent powers): quashing permissible where allegations, even assumed true, fail to disclose prima facie offence (Bhajan Lal guidelines).
- Section 19 Indian Contract Act: misrepresentation deprives true consent; here, no direct misrepresentation at the relationship’s start.
Procedural Innovations
- Clarifies application of Section 528 BNSS to quash FIR and chargesheet filed post-investigation when no prima facie offence exists.
- Endorses threshold scrutiny of cognizable offence allegations under inherent powers without awaiting full trial.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed