Supreme Court Judgment on Consent in Relationships and False Promise to Marry

Supreme Court of India examined the issue, whether charges of rape on the basis of a false promise of marriage could be maintained when the complainant knew the accused's current marital status?

The appeal was made by Biswajyoti Chatterjee, a retired judicial officer, against an order of the Calcutta High Court that had declined to acquit him in an FIR registered under Sections 376 (rape), 417 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIR was lodged by the second respondent/complainant, who alleged that during the pendency of her divorce in 2014, she came into contact with the appellant, who at the time was posted as ACJM, Haldia.

The complainant alleged that the appellant, who was also separated from his wife, promised to marry her and take responsibility for her and her son once her divorce was finalized. Based on this assurance, they allegedly had physical relations on multiple occasions. The complainant further stated that after her divorce was finalized, the appellant started avoiding her. The High Court had earlier dismissed the appellant's revision petition against the Sessions Court's order refusing to discharge him.

The Supreme Court, on hearing the submissions, noted that the complainant knew right from the start that the appellant was separated but remained married. The Apex Court reaffirmed that the "consent" of a woman under Section 375 IPC has to be an active and reasoned consideration towards the act in question. It referred to the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs State of Maharashtra to emphasize again that in order for a promise to marry to invalidate consent, it must be a false promise made in bad faith with no intention of being fulfilled at the time of its making, and must have a direct nexus with the decision of the woman to undergo the sexual act. The Court was not likely that the complainant entered a physical relationship based on the promise of marriage, considering that she knew of the appellant's status as married.

In addition, the Apex Court observed the increasing practice of filing criminal cases when relations sour and opined that all consensual relationships with a potential for marriage cannot be tainted as a false cover to marry in case of a breakdown.

Accordingly, Supreme Court held such cases to be an abuse of the process of law, and the proceedings should be brought to an end at the charge stage. Holding that the physical relationship was consensual and not without her consent or against her will, the Supreme Court granted the criminal appeal, quashed the impugned order of the High Court, and brought the criminal proceedings against the appellant to an end.

CORAM: Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07-04-2025