Physical Relationship on Promise of Marriage Not Always Rape: SC

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar allowed the appeal filed by Kunal Chattterjee against the Calcutta High Court's order which refused to quash the case against him.

The appellant was an accused in a case under Sections 417, 376, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The complainant, at the time of lodging of the FIR, was a major, but alleged that she was a minor and was the age of 15 years, i.e. more than three years back, when the appellant and the prosecutrix had a consensual relationship and the complainant agreed to be in relationship after the appellant had promised to marry her.

She claimed after she became major, the appellant backed out from his promise and she was humiliated by the parents of the present appellant. Thus, she was constrained to file an FIR, not only against the appellant, but also against his father, mother and uncle.

The substance of the FIR was that she was admittedly in a relationship at the time she was a minor, and she entered into the relationship on the promise of marriage. Hence, the case of rape is made out, and that too rape of a child.

The accused had invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court for quashing of the FIR. The High Court quashed the proceedings against father, mother and uncle of the appellant but kept it alive against him.

The state counsel relied upon the definition of ‘Rape’ and argued that the consent given by the minor is no consent and it would still be a rape.

"In our considered opinion, as regarding the rape being committed by the appellant when the prosecutrix was a minor, there is absolutely no evidence, and definitely no forensic evidence with the prosecution,'' the bench said.

The court pointed out, it is only an allegation in the FIR after more than 03 years, in order to make out a case under the POCSO Act, that such an act of rape was committed three years back when she was a minor. She also categorically stated that she consented to the act as there was a promise of marriage by the appellant.

The bench said this court has held in several decisions that promise to marriage and the subsequent physical relationship between the two with consent would not amount to rape and the reasons therein have been assigned.

In this regard, the bench cited Prithivirajan v. State, (2025), Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020).

"Under the present facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the evidence with the prosecution, particularly the long delay in lodging the FIR itself suggest that the present criminal proceedings lodged against the appellant are nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the High Court ought to have invoked its inherent jurisdiction in the case of the appellant as well as it did while quashing the proceedings for the remaining accused,'' the bench said.

The court accordingly quashed the proceedings against the appellant.