Introduction:

In a recent Supreme Court ruling, a criminal case alleging rape on the pretext of marriage has been quashed, highlighting the complexities of relationships and the importance of factual accuracy in legal proceedings. The bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the absence of a promise to marry and revealing misstatements by the complainant.

Arguments:

The complainant accused the appellant of repeated sexual intercourse under the false promise of marriage, leading her to divorce her husband based on the accused’s assurance of care for her child. The appellant argued that the complainant’s claims were misleading, pointing out the delayed divorce decree contradicting her stated timeline. The Supreme Court agreed, noting the complainant’s false assertion regarding the divorce date and concluding that no promise to marry existed initially.

Court’s Judgement:

The Supreme Court, concurring with the appellant’s submissions, found the complainant’s claims inconsistent with the timeline of events. It emphasized her maturity and ability to make informed decisions, quashing the criminal case under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment referenced a similar precedent, Naim Ahamed v. State of NCT of Delhi, reinforcing the principle that consent for a sexual relationship cannot be misconceived based on subsequent events.