Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Company Name: Seimens Healthineers Electronic City Phase 2 Team Name: AT Manager's Name: Anurag Sinha/Sumit Bhatnagar ¢£ÁAPÀ: 10.10.2024 gÀAzÀÄ 19.30 UÀAmÉUÉ ¦üAiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ oÁuÁ ªÉÆ.£ÀA:80/2024 PÀ®A:417, 376 L¦¹ CrAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹zÉ."

4. As can be seen from the aforesaid complaint, respondent No.2 specifically contended that the petitioner is guilty NC: 2025:KHC:21007 HC-KAR of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 IPC inasmuch as he had consensual sexual relationship with her for a long time under the pretext / false promise of marriage during the period 2018 to 2024. Under identical circumstances, the Apex Court and this Court in several judgments have come to the conclusion that the breach of promise of marriage and having consensual sexual relationship pursuance to the same would not amount to commission of the aforesaid offences as held hereunder:

(d) There is also no reasonable possibility that the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 or any woman being married before and having a child of four years, would continue to be deceived by the Appellant or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with an individual who has sexually assaulted and exploited her.

9. In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the

(Emphasis supplied) The Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala was following the judgments rendered by the Apex Court, on the issue, rendered from time to time and holds that such acts on consensus would not amount to an offence of rape.

- 27 -

NC: 2025:KHC:21007 HC-KAR

9. It now becomes germane to notice the judgments of the Apex Court. The Apex Court has delineated the inter-play between the offence of rape and a consensual sexual relationship, both on the false promise of marriage, and promise of marriage. Therefore, a deeper delving into the issue becomes unnecessary, suffice to quote the judgments of the Apex Court rendered over the years. The Apex Court in the case of PRAMOD SURYABHAN PAWAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA has drawn distinction between rape and consensual sexual relationships. While delineating inter-play between promise of marriage and allegation of rape, the Apex Court has held as follows:

(emphasis supplied)

12. In the present case, the issue which had to be addressed by the High Court was whether, assuming all the allegations in the charge-sheet are correct as they stand, an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC was made out. Admittedly, the appellant and the second respondent were in a consensual relationship from 2013 until December 2017. They are both educated adults. The second respondent, during the course of this period, got married on 12 June 2014 to someone else. The marriage ended in a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 17 September 2017. The allegations of the second respondent indicate that her relationship with the appellant continued prior to her marriage, during the subsistence of the