In a firm and unmistakable voice, the Supreme Court has reminded the criminal justice system that the charge of rape cannot be stretched to cover every relationship that ends on a sour note. The Court cleared an advocate of allegations that he had repeatedly assaulted a woman under a supposed false promise of marriage, calling the complaint a classic example of a consensual relationship later recast as criminal wrongdoing.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan—speaking with clear disapproval—said that diluting the offence of rape by dragging ordinary relationship fallouts into criminal courts does grave injustice not only to the accused but also to those who genuinely suffer sexual violence. They cautioned that the gravity of the offence must remain intact.
The judges underscored a crucial truth of the social landscape: in a society where marriage carries enormous cultural and personal weight, a woman may choose intimacy believing it to be a stepping stone to a legitimate future. In such cases, her consent depends on the sincerity of the promise. But the Court made it equally clear that only a promise made in bad faith—with no intention of fulfilment and solely to exploit—can vitiate consent. Bare accusations or emotional shifts after a relationship collapses are not enough.
The ruling warns that the law must be both protective and precise. Trust can be broken, and dignity can be violated, but criminal prosecution must rest on solid, credible evidence—not hindsight, not regret, and not assumptions.
In the case at hand, the relationship ran from 2022 to 2024, involving repeated consensual intimacy. The woman herself had earlier rejected the idea of marriage due to complications in her personal life. Yet later, she alleged that the relationship was sustained under a false marital promise. The Court found no factual basis to support this claim.
The judges noted the internal contradictions: despite opposing marriage, she continued to meet the man and engage in intimacy, even while already being married. Her actions, they said, showed that the relationship was not driven solely by the expectation of marriage—but by mutual consent.
Calling the allegations insufficient to attract the serious charge of “repeated rape,” the Court reiterated that emotional involvement, long-term companionship, and consensual intimacy cannot be retroactively labelled a criminal act simply because the relationship breaks down.
The judgment stands as a strong reminder: the criminal law is not a remedy for heartbreak, and its misuse undermines justice for the truly aggrieved.
