The Supreme Courtroom on Thursday (February 5) quashed legal proceedings in opposition to a Chhattisgarh advocate accused of repeatedly raping a married lady colleague on the false promise of marriage.
“It has been again and again settled by this Courtroom, that the mere indisputable fact that the events indulged in bodily relations pursuant to a promise to marry is not going to quantity to a rape in each case. An offence below Part 375 of the IPC might solely be made out, if promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to acquire consent for sexual relations with out having any intent of fulfilling mentioned promise from the very starting and that such false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations.”, noticed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, whereas setting apart the Chhattisgarh Excessive Courtroom’s order that refused to quash the rape case in opposition to the Appellant.
The complainant, additionally a 33-year-old advocate and a married mom with a pending divorce petition, had alleged that the Appellant established a bodily relationship together with her beginning in September 2022 on the peace of mind of marriage. She claimed the connection continued till January 2025, throughout which she turned pregnant and was compelled to bear an abortion. After a confrontation together with his household turned hostile, she lodged an FIR in February 2025 below Part 376(2)(n) IPC, which prescribes enhanced punishment for rape dedicated “repeatedly on the identical lady.”
Aggrieved by the Excessive Courtroom’s refusal to quash the FIR, the accused moved to the Supreme Courtroom.
Setting apart the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna noticed that the complainant was legally married all through the interval of the alleged relationship, as her divorce was nonetheless pending adjudication. Consequently, any promise of marriage made by the appellant to a married lady was legally unimaginable to carry out from its inception, as below Part 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a wedding is void if both social gathering has a dwelling partner.
“The regulation prohibits bigamous unions and subsequently disallows events from getting into right into a second marriage through the subsistence of their first marriage. Subsequently, it’s troublesome to simply accept the view that the complainant-respondent No.3, who herself is an advocate, was oblivious to the mentioned settled place of regulation and therefore was duped and induced by the accused appellant into having sexual relations with him on totally different events on the pretext of marriage particularly when each the events have been cognizant of the marital standing of the complainant respondent No.3.,” the Courtroom said.
The Courtroom discovered the current case didn’t show a false promise made with a mens rea to deceive for sexual gratification. As a substitute, it pointed to a consensual relationship between two conscious, educated adults that later turned acrimonious.
“In our opinion, the information of the current case clearly point out a consensual relationship gone bitter whereas each the events ought to have exercised restraint and may have avoided involving the State into their private relationship turning rancour.”, the court docket added.
Accordingly, the attraction was allowed.
Trigger Title: P N VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OTHERS
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 118
Click on right here to obtain judgment
Look:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jugul Kishor Gupta, AOR Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Adv. Mr. Ankit Borker, Adv. Mr. Ankit Tiwari, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praneet Pranav, D.A.G. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ayushi Pandey, Adv. Ms. Aswathi M.ok., AOR Mr. Rishabh, Adv
(n) IPC.){kind=link}