The Supreme Court has ruled that in cases where rape is alleged on the basis of a false promise of marriage, trial courts must carefully examine the accused’s intention at the time of making such a promise. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta observed that if the assurance to marry was false from the very inception and made merely to obtain sexual favours, the act would amount to rape under criminal law. However, if a relationship was consensual and the marriage failed due to supervening circumstances, it would not constitute rape.
The Court, while quashing summons in a case where the prosecutrix claimed that she was repeatedly raped between 2010 and 2014 under a false promise of marriage, held that there was no evidence to establish mala fide intent at the outset. It noted that the parties had shared a long-standing consensual relationship, and the complaint was filed after an unexplained delay of four years.
The judgment reiterates the distinction between a “false promise”, which vitiates consent and attracts penal consequences, and a “breach of promise”, which may give rise only to civil or matrimonial disputes. Stressing that allegations of rape on the ground of marriage promise require careful judicial scrutiny, the Court cautioned against mechanically criminalizing consensual relationships, as such an approach could result in grave miscarriage of justice.
This ruling reinforces earlier precedents, including Jaspal Singh Kaural v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025), Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. (2025), and Jothiragawan v. State (2025), where the Supreme Court emphasized that only promises made without genuine intent to marry fall within the ambit of rape.