DATE: 07/04/2025
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
FACTS:
The present case arises from an appeal challenging the judgment dated 3rd January 2024 by the Delhi High Court, which had set aside the discharge order of the Additional Sessions Judge passed on 8th June 2023 in connection with FIR No. 281/2021, registered under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIR was lodged by the complainant (Respondent No. 2), alleging that the appellant, with whom she had been in a romantic relationship since 2016, had established physical relations with her under the false promise of marriage. The complainant and the appellant had known each other since 2011, and after their respective marriages became strained, they rekindled their relationship. The appellant, who was residing in Canada, allegedly assured the complainant that he would divorce his wife and marry her, which led her to obtain a divorce from her own husband in 2019.
The complainant further alleged that the appellant cohabited with her for around 25 days and coerced her into sexual relations under the threat that he would not marry her otherwise. She also claimed he threatened to harm her children when he later refused to marry her on 20th May 2021. The appellant admitted to having had a sexual relationship and even to purchasing a mangalsutra with his initials. Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant for offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The Sessions Court, however, discharged him, holding that the prosecutrix had consented to the relationship with full awareness and not under any misconception. This discharge was overturned by the Delhi High Court, which found prima facie evidence of a sexual relationship induced by a false promise of marriage, and directed the framing of charges—a decision now under appeal before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
The main issue presented before the Court was to determine whether the appellant had indulged in sexual relationship with the Complainant/Respondent, with the promise to marry her. The appellant also seeks to question the validity of the judgement made by the High Court in order dated 03/01/2024.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court’s order dated 03.01.2024. It upheld the earlier decision of the Sessions Court dated 08.06.2023, which had discharged the appellant from the charges under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. Consequently, the Court terminated all criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 281/2021 dated 05.06.2021 registered at PS Sagarpur against the appellant. It concluded that there was insufficient material on record to justify the framing of charges for rape or criminal intimidation.
The Court held that the relationship between the complainant and the appellant was consensual in nature and not induced by any fraudulent or dishonest promise to marry. Drawing upon precedent, particularly the case of Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court emphasized the distinction between a false promise made with no intent to marry and a genuine promise that could not be fulfilled due to unforeseen circumstances. It noted that the prosecutrix, a married woman, had knowingly engaged in a prolonged relationship with the appellant, even obtaining a divorce to continue the association, and there was no evidence of force, coercion, or deceit. Furthermore, the Court found no material to support the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
The Court also criticized the High Court for engaging in an exhaustive evaluation of evidence at the stage of framing charges, contrary to settled legal principles that prohibit a "mini-trial" during this phase. It reiterated that courts should only examine whether prima facie material exists to support the allegations, based solely on the material submitted by the prosecution. Since the ingredients of rape and criminal intimidation were not established from the FIR or the charge sheet, and the Sessions Court's decision was grounded in the evidence available, the Supreme Court held that interference by the High Court was unwarranted and beyond the scope of its limited revisional jurisdiction.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case is a reaffirmation of the legal principle that not every breach of a promise to marry constitutes rape. By distinguishing between a false promise made with no intent to marry and a genuine promise that could not be fulfilled due to unforeseen circumstances, the Court clarified the scope of Section 375 IPC. It held that the appellant's actions—such as engaging in a long-standing consensual relationship, cohabiting with the complainant, and even purchasing a mangalsutra with her initials—pointed toward a genuine intent to marry rather than deception. The complainant, a married woman who divorced her husband to continue her relationship with the appellant, was found to have acted with full awareness and volition. There was no evidence to suggest that her consent was obtained through force, threat, or fraudulent inducement. Consequently, the charge of rape was deemed unsustainable.
Additionally, the Court found no merit in the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC. It criticized the High Court for conducting an in-depth analysis of evidence at the preliminary stage of framing charges, which, as per established legal norms, is not permissible. The Court emphasized that at this stage, the material on record must only be reviewed to see if there is a prima facie case, and a "mini-trial" should be avoided. Since the FIR and charge sheet did not establish the essential ingredients of rape or criminal intimidation, the Sessions Court’s discharge order was found to be legally sound. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had overstepped its revisional jurisdiction by interfering with a well-reasoned discharge order, and therefore, set aside its judgment, effectively terminating all criminal proceedings against the appellant.
info@adhwaitha.com
