Supreme Court’s Position on Rape Charges Based on False Promise of Marriage
Recent Supreme Court judgments have clarified the legal standards for prosecuting rape cases arising from alleged false promises of marriage.
1. Mere Breach of Promise Is Not Rape
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that not every breach of a promise to marry amounts to rape. If a consensual relationship turns sour or partners separate, that alone does not justify invoking criminal charges of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court has warned against treating every failed promise to marry as a false promise, emphasizing that such misuse burdens the courts and tarnishes the accused’s reputation.
2. Consent and Misconception of Fact
The core issue is whether the accused, at the time of making the promise, never intended to marry and used the promise solely to obtain consent for sexual intercourse. If consent was obtained through deception or fraud from the outset, it can amount to rape under Section 375 read with Section 90 IPC.
In Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court convicted the accused where it was proven that he never intended to marry the prosecutrix and only used the promise to obtain her consent for sex.
3. Abuse of Process and Vindictive Complaints
The Supreme Court has flagged the growing trend of filing rape cases as a form of retaliation or harassment after relationships end. Where the complainant’s allegations are inconsistent, malicious, or aimed at harassing the accused, courts have quashed such proceedings as an abuse of process.
In a recent case, the Court described the complainant’s conduct as “vindictive and manipulative,” quashing the rape case after finding the allegations riddled with inconsistencies and malicious intent.
4. Special Circumstances: Married Complainants and Live-in Relationships
The Court has held that a promise of marriage made to a married woman (who is not legally separated or divorced) cannot be the basis for a rape charge, as such a promise is unenforceable and cannot induce valid consent.
In cases involving long-term live-in relationships, the Court has refused to accept claims that the relationship was based solely on a promise of marriage, especially when both parties lived together as consenting adults for an extended period.
5. Key Judicial Observations
“A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence.”
“A breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it is proven that consent was obtained through fraud from the outset.”
When Does a False Promise of Marriage Amount to Rape?
| Scenario | Rape Charge Sustainable? | Key Consideration |
|---|---|---|
| Accused never intended to marry, used promise to obtain consent | Yes | Consent obtained by fraud/misconception of fact |
| Relationship consensual, later turns sour | No | No fraud at inception; mere breach is not enough |
| Promise made to a married (not divorced) woman | No | Promise unenforceable; no valid inducement |
| Long-term live-in relationship | No | Presumption of consensuality; not solely based on promise |
| Allegations found to be vindictive/manipulative | No | Abuse of legal process; inconsistent allegations |
The Supreme Court has drawn a clear distinction between genuine cases of deception at the outset and cases where relationships fail or promises are not kept for other reasons. Only when it is proven that the accused never intended to marry and used the promise solely to obtain consent for sexual intercourse can a rape charge be sustained. Otherwise, such allegations are liable to be quashed as abuse of process or misuse of law.
Supreme Court Judgments on False Promise of Marriage and Rape Charges
1. No Rape Charge When Promise Made to a Married Woman
In a recent 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court quashed a rape case against a 25-year-old student, holding that a promise to marry a woman who was still legally married to another man cannot be the basis for a rape charge, even if she was estranged from her husband. The Court emphasized that there was no material to substantiate inducement or misrepresentation by the accused, and it is “inconceivable” that the complainant engaged in a physical relationship on the assurance of marriage while still married to someone else. Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
2. Distinction Between ‘False Promise’ and ‘Breach of Promise’
The Supreme Court has consistently distinguished between a “false promise to marry” (where the accused never intended to marry and used the promise solely to obtain consent for sex) and a mere “breach of promise” (where the relationship ends due to genuine reasons). Only the former can vitiate consent and attract rape charges under Section 376 IPC.
In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), the Court held that for a rape charge to be sustained, it must be shown that the promise was made in bad faith and directly influenced the woman’s decision to engage in sexual relations.
3. Consensual Relationships and Misuse of Rape Laws
The Court has repeatedly cautioned against the misuse of rape laws in cases where consensual relationships turn sour. In Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra (2025), the bench observed that a consensual relationship turning sour or partners separating cannot be grounds for a rape case on a false promise of marriage. Such cases burden the courts and damage reputations.
In Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024), the Court noted a “worrying trend” of criminalizing failed relationships as rape, warning that not every failed promise amounts to a criminal offense.
4. When Does Consent Become Invalid?
Consent is vitiated only if it is proven that the accused never intended to marry from the outset and used the promise as a deliberate deception to obtain sexual favors. If the promise to marry was genuine at the time but could not be fulfilled due to later circumstances, it does not amount to rape.
In Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court held that if it is established that the accused never intended to marry and the prosecutrix gave consent based on such a promise, it is considered consent obtained under a misconception of fact, and the accused can be convicted of rape.
5. Cases Involving Ongoing Marriages
The Court has held that a promise to marry made to a woman who is still married (not legally divorced) is not legally valid and cannot be the basis for a rape charge, as such a promise is unenforceable and cannot induce valid consent.
SC Approach on Rape Allegations Based on Promise of Marriage
| Scenario | SC Position |
|---|---|
| Promise to marry made to a married woman | No rape charge; promise unenforceable; consent not vitiated |
| Relationship turns sour after consensual sex | No rape charge; mere breach of promise is not criminal |
| Promise made with no intention to marry (fraud) | Rape charge possible; consent vitiated by misconception of fact |
| Promise genuine but marriage fails due to reasons | No rape charge; not every failed promise is a false promise |
| Consent obtained during subsisting marriage | No rape charge; complainant cannot claim inducement |
Key Quotes from Supreme Court
“A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinus offence”.
“There is no material to substantiate inducement or misrepresentation on the part of the appellant (accused student) to secure consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise”.
The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence is clear: Only a deliberate false promise to marry, made with no intention of fulfillment and used to obtain consent for sex, can form the basis of a rape charge. Mere breach of promise, failed relationships, or promises made to married women do not meet the threshold for criminal prosecution under Section 376 IPC.
