SC Restores Discharge in Rape Case Alleging Breach of Promise to Marry

This appeal is preferred challenging Delhi High Court's order which had overturned the discharge of the Appellant by the Sessions Court in an FIR under the allegations of rape (Section 376 IPC) and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC). The Complainant alleged that the Appellant formed physical relationships with her on the assurance of marriage and upbringing of her children, a relationship which arose after their respective marriages got disrupted.

The Sessions Court had held the relationship to be consensual and discharged him of charges but the High Court reversed this and held prima facie material for framing charges are present.

Supreme Court examined whether physical relations established out of the promise of marriage constitute rape under Section 375 IPC or not. The Apex Court, drawing on its previous ruling in Naim Ahmed Vs State (NCT) of Delhi (Click to Downlaod), reaffirmed the important distinction between a false promise to marry (where there was never an intention to marry but only a promise made to procure sexual consent) and a breach of promise to marry (where the promise can have been made in good faith initially but was later impossible to keep).

Supreme Court also examined the power of the Session Court under Section 227 of CrPC to discharge the accused of charges at the time of framing of charges when it finds the ingredients are not prima facie attracting the alleged offence.

*The Apex Court held that "Sessions Court to exercise powers under section 227 CrPC, and discharge the Appellant. It is trite law that at the time of framing of charge, a mini trial is not permissible and the Trial Court has to proceed with the material brought on record by the prosecution and determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged."

The apex Court observed that a prolonged consensual relationship, especially in light of the Complainant's marital status and knowledge of the Appellant's existing marriage, indicated that her consent was not solely based on a misconception of fact induced by a false promise from the beginning. The Apex Court emphasized that for an offence under Section 375 IPC to be made out in such cases, the promise of marriage must have been a dishonest inducement from the inception with the sole intention of obtaining sexual consent.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and upheld the Sessions Court's order discharging the Appellant by finding that the material on record did not establish the necessary ingredients of the offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, particularly considering the prolonged consensual relationship and the absence of evidence demonstrating a false promise of marriage from the outset with the sole intention to engage in sexual relations.

CORAM: JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA & JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
BETWEEN: JASPAL SINGH KAURAL VS THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 INSC 457
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07-04-2025