6 May 2026 Legal Updates

Consensual Long-Term Relationship Cannot Automatically Become ‘False Promise of Marriage’ Rape Case: Supreme Court

Supreme Court quashed rape charges, holding that a consensual relationship continuing for years between two adults cannot later be termed rape merely because the relationship failed.

Case Details

(a) Case Title:

• Shaileshbhai Govindbhai Makwana v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Bench:

• Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Manmohan

Facts of the Case

• The complainant woman was married in 1998 and had started living separately from her husband in 2012. Even before her divorce proceedings were completed, she created a profile on a matrimonial website in 2017 seeking remarriage.
• Through this matrimonial platform, she came in contact with the appellant. At that time, both parties were already married to different spouses and fully aware of each other's marital status. According to the complainant, the appellant assured her that he would marry her in the future.
• The complainant alleged that in October 2017, the appellant visited her residence and had sexual intercourse with her against her will, including unnatural sexual acts. However, despite this allegation, the parties continued their relationship for nearly four years. They travelled together, stayed in hotels, and maintained a consensual physical relationship between 2017 and 2020.
• The dispute arose in 2021 when the complainant allegedly pressured the appellant for marriage and he refused. Thereafter, she lodged an FIR alleging offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 377 and 506 IPC, claiming that the physical relationship was induced by a false promise of marriage.
• The Bombay High Court refused to quash the FIR, after which the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised

• Whether a long-term consensual relationship can later be treated as rape on the ground of false promise of marriage?
• Whether refusal to marry after a consensual relationship amounts to rape under Section 376 IPC?
• Whether continuation of the relationship for several years weakens the allegation of deception?
• Whether a second quashing petition is maintainable when the earlier petition was withdrawn without adjudication on merits?

Contentions of the Petitioner (Accused/Appellant)

• The relationship was completely consensual and continued happily for nearly four years.
• Both parties were mature adults and aware that they were already married to others.
• The complainant herself sought remarriage through a matrimonial website even before finalisation of her divorce.
• There was no false promise made solely to obtain consent for sexual relations.
• The FIR was lodged only after the relationship deteriorated and marriage discussions failed.
• The allegations did not satisfy the ingredients of rape under Section 376 IPC.
• The High Court wrongly rejected the quashing petition merely on maintainability grounds.

Contentions of the Respondent (Complainant/State)

• The appellant induced the complainant into a physical relationship by promising marriage.
• The consent for sexual relations was therefore obtained through deception.
• The appellant later refused to marry her after years of relationship.
• The allegations disclosed offences under Sections 376, 377 and 506 IPC.
• The High Court correctly refused to quash the proceedings since disputed facts required trial.

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings

1. Distinction Between False Promise & Failed Relationship

The Supreme Court emphasized an important legal distinction: Every breach of promise to marry does NOT amount to rape.

The Court clarified: A false promise becomes criminal only when:

• The accused never intended to marry from the beginning, and
• The promise was made solely to obtain consent for sexual intercourse.

However: If the relationship later fails due to changed circumstances or incompatibility, it does not automatically become rape.

2. Relationship Was Consensual

The Court carefully examined the conduct of the parties.

It noted:

• The parties remained in a relationship from 2017–2020.
• They travelled together and cohabited willingly.
• There was no immediate complaint after the alleged incident in 2017.
• The FIR was lodged only in 2021 after the relationship soured.

The Court observed:“Parties have happily cohabited together between 2017 and 2020 and thereafter the relationship soured.”

Thus, the relationship appeared consensual rather than coerced.

3. Both Parties Were Mature Adults

The Court highlighted that:

• Both parties knew they were already married to others.
• The complainant herself had sought remarriage through a matrimonial website before obtaining divorce.

This weakened the allegation that she was deceived into the relationship solely by a marriage promise.

4. Delay In Complaint Was Significant

The alleged forcible incident occurred in October 2017.

However:

• No complaint was filed for nearly four years.
• The parties continued the relationship voluntarily during this period.

The Court found this inconsistent with allegations of rape by deception.

5. High Court Wrongly Dismissed Quashing Petition

• The Supreme Court also criticised the Bombay High Court.
• The earlier quashing petition had been withdrawn without adjudication on merits.
• Therefore: Filing a fresh petition was maintainable.
• The Supreme Court held that once it found no offence disclosed, it would be unjust to reject the petition merely on technical maintainability grounds.

6. Reliance on Precedents

The Court relied heavily on: Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra

This case established: A distinction must be drawn between:

• False promise made with fraudulent intent, and
• Mere failure to fulfil a promise later.

For rape liability: Consent must be obtained solely because of deception.

7. Interpretation of IPC Provisions

(a) Section 376 IPC (Rape)

• Consent obtained through misconception of fact may amount to rape.
• However: The misconception must be immediate and direct, The promise must be false from inception.

(b) Section 90 IPC

Consent is invalid if:

• Given under fear, or
• Given under misconception of fact.

But courts must examine: Whether the accused genuinely intended marriage at the beginning.

Final Verdict

Supreme Court allowed the appeal

The criminal proceedings under:

• Section 376 IPC
• Section 377 IPC
• Section 506 IPC

were quashed

The Court held that:

• The relationship was consensual, and
• This was not a case of rape on false promise of marriage.

Legal Principles Established

1. Breach Of Promise ≠ Rape Automatically

• A failed relationship or refusal to marry: Does not automatically become rape.
• For rape liability: Promise must be false from the beginning.

2. Consent Under Misconception Must Be Directly Linked

Under Section 90 IPC:

• Consent becomes invalid only if: The woman consented solely because of deception.
• If relationship developed mutually over time: Consent may still remain valid.

3. Long-Term Consensual Relationship Weakens Rape Allegation

Courts examine:

• Duration of relationship
• Conduct of parties
• Delay in complaint
• Voluntary cohabitation

These factors help determine whether: Relationship was consensual.

4. False Promise Cases Require Fraudulent Intent From Beginning

Key Test: Did the accused genuinely intend marriage initially?

• If yes: Later refusal alone is not rape.
• If no: It may amount to rape by deception.

5. Delay In FIR Can Affect Credibility

While delay alone is not fatal:

• Unexplained long delay, Continued consensual relationship
• may weaken prosecution claims.

6. Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Penalise Failed Relationships

• The Court cautioned against: Converting every failed romantic relationship into criminal prosecution.