‘Difficult to Believe Married Woman Was Induced Into S*x With False Marriage Promise’: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Advocate

New Delhi, February 5: The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed criminal proceedings against a Chhattisgarh-based advocate accused of repeatedly raping a married woman colleague on the alleged false promise of marriage, holding that the case reflected a consensual relationship rather than a criminal offence.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the Chhattisgarh High Court’s order that had refused to quash the FIR under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC.

The Court reiterated that s*x on the basis of a promise to marry does not amount to rape in every case. It clarified that an offence under Section 375 IPC is made out only when the promise of marriage is false from the very beginning and made solely to obtain consent for s*xual relations, with no intention of fulfilling it. 'Case Filed After Consensual Relation Turned Sour': Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Retired Judicial Officer Accused of Rape, Cheating and Intimidation.

In the present case, the complainant, a 33-year-old advocate and a married woman with a pending divorce petition, alleged that the accused had maintained a physical relationship with her from September 2022 to January 2025 on the assurance of marriage, during which she became pregnant and underwent an abortion. An FIR was lodged in February 2025 after disputes arose between the parties. What Is Romeo-Juliet Clause? Supreme Court Pushes POCSO Reform for Teen Relationships.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the complainant was legally married throughout the alleged period of the relationship. It observed that any promise of marriage made to a married woman was legally impossible to perform from the outset, as the law prohibits bigamous marriages.

The Court further held that both parties were educated adults and advocates, fully aware of the legal implications of the complainant’s marital status. It rejected the argument that the complainant was deceived into giving consent for s*xual relations.

Calling it a “consensual relationship gone sour,” the Supreme Court said the facts did not disclose criminal intent or deception and cautioned against involving the State in purely personal disputes. The FIR and all related proceedings were accordingly quashed.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Feb 05, 2026 08:13 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).