NEW DELHI,21March 2026 : Drawing a sharp line between criminal culpability and a failed relationship, the Supreme Court has quashed a rape case against a Haryana man, holding that a consensual relationship cannot later be recast as rape merely because the promise of marriage did not materialise.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR registered against him.
“The consent demolishes the case of the complainant that there was rape on the promise of marriage,” said the apex court on March 19, rejecting the very foundation of the prosecution.
Case collapses on its own
The court allowed the appeal filed by the man, setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to quash the First Information Report (FIR).
The court found that even if the allegations in the FIR were taken at face value, they failed to disclose the essential ingredients of rape, particularly the absence of free consent.
The court dismantled the prosecution’s case on multiple fronts:
*The relationship is said to have commenced in August 2023 and is said to have continued till March 2024 – obviously and admittedly consensual.
*The court noted that the complainant’s own version reflected active participation, not submission under deception or fear.
No fraud, no coercion
*The bench found no material suggesting inducement, misrepresentation, or threat – key elements required to vitiate consent under criminal law.
Marriage promise ‘implausible’
*A critical factor was the complainant’s personal circumstances – she was already married and a mother of two children.
*There was no claim of divorce or legal separation. The court held that in such a scenario, the allegation of a genuine promise of marriage loses credibility, making the charge of deception untenable.
Suspicious timing of FIR
*The FIR was registered on March 28, 2024, after the accused’s marriage and following a quarrel days later when the complainant disclosed her pregnancy.
*The marriage of the appellant took place on March 12, 2024, after which the FIR was registered alleging a quarrel on March 15, 2024, three days after the marriage.
*This sequence, the court indicated, undermined the prosecution’s claim of a bona fide grievance.
