SC Quashes Rape Case On False Promise Of Marriage, Calls It Abuse of law
The bench said if the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, high court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings.
Published : September 10, 2025 at 10:07 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex, while quashing a criminal case involving allegations of rape on the false promise of marriage, saying that “continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant would be nothing but gross abuse of the process of law”.
A bench comprising justices J B Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta passed the order on September 2, 2025. The bench suggested a four-step test to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the high court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
“(i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false”, said the apex court, in its order.
The bench said, “(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?”
The bench said if the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the high court should persuade it to quash such criminal – proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
The bench said such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.
The bench said: “There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case where there is a promise of marriage, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls in the ambit of cheating or deception”.
The bench said that summoning any person on the basis of a frivolous or vexatious complaint is something very serious and this would tarnish the image of the person against whom false, frivolous, and vexatious allegations are levelled.
The bench set aside an order passed by the Allahabad High Court, which declined to quash criminal proceedings against a man who was accused of raping a woman on the false pretext of marriage.
In August 2014, the complainant, a Scheduled Caste student, lodged a private complaint before the trial court and alleged that in 2010, the accused befriended her during coaching classes. She claimed that the man sexually assaulted her on the false pretext of marriage, recorded objectionable videos to blackmail her, and continued to exploit her sexually. She also accused his family of caste-based abuse when she pressed for marriage.
The bench said it is very apparent on a plain reading of the complaint, more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations that the same doesn’t inspire any confidence, and there is no good explanation offered, why it took four years for the complainant to file a complaint.
The bench said the fact that the complainant thought fit not to even accept the notice issued by this court is one additional ground that she was not at all serious right from day one i.e. since the time she decided to lodge the complaint.
“We need not say anything further in the matter as we are of the view that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant would be nothing but gross abuse of the process of law. In such circumstances, the high court should have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the criminal proceedings”, said the bench, allowing the appeal filed by the man.
The bench said the duty of the court in cases where an accused seeks quashing of an FIR or proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, or vexatious, or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance was delineated by this court in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023).
“Not only the appellant was dragged into the criminal proceedings but even the parents of the appellant were arrayed as accused. Various other offences have been alleged. This itself makes the entire case doubtful. None of the allegations levelled in the complaint are substantiated by any other independent evidence on record”, said the apex court.
Read more
