Consensual Relationship with Married Woman Cannot Constitute Rape on False Promise of Marriage: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376(2)(n) IPC
Case Name: Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Citation: 2026 INSC 124
Date of Judgment/Order: 05 February 2026
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Held: The Supreme Court held that the offence of rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC was not made out on the allegations contained in the FIR, as the facts disclosed a consensual relationship between two adults, and the prosecutrix being a married woman with a subsisting marriage was legally incapable of marrying the accused at the relevant time. Even if a promise of marriage was alleged, such promise was legally unenforceable due to the statutory bar under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 4(i) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Court reiterated that for consent to be vitiated under misconception of fact, the promise must have been false from the inception and must have directly induced the sexual relationship. In the absence of such material, continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process under the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
Summary: The appellant, an advocate, was accused under Section 376(2)(n) IPC on allegations that he had repeatedly engaged in sexual relations with the complainant—also an advocate and a married woman—on a false promise of marriage. The complainant was married since 2011, had a ten-year-old son, and divorce proceedings were pending. She alleged that the accused first raped her on 18.09.2022 under the pretext of marriage and subsequently continued physical relations while assuring marriage, eventually refusing and allegedly forcing her to abort a pregnancy. The High Court refused to quash the FIR but granted anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court examined the legal position on rape on false promise of marriage, referring to Naim Ahamed, Mahesh Damu Khare, Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, and Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, and emphasized the distinction between a false promise made from inception and a mere breach of promise. The Court observed that both parties were aware of the complainant’s subsisting marriage, rendering any promise of marriage legally impossible, and that the allegations reflected a consensual relationship turning acrimonious rather than sexual exploitation. It cautioned against criminalising failed relationships and underscored the need for careful scrutiny in invoking Section 376(2)(n) IPC.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dated 03.03.2025 refusing to quash the proceedings, and quashed FIR No.213/2025 dated 06.02.2025 registered at Sarkanda Police Station, Bilaspur, the Chargesheet No.269/2025, and all consequential proceedings including Sessions Case No.89/2025. The appeal was allowed in the aforesaid terms.