In Cases Of Rape On False Marriage Promise, Courts Must Examine If Accused Made Promise Only To Satisfy His Lust : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently clarified the difference between consensual sex following a promise to marry which was broken later and intercourse based on a false promise made with mala fide intent from the start.

“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 Court observed.

The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta quashed the summons issued to the Appellant by the magistrate in a case pertaining to rape on the false pretext of marriage, noting that there was no evidence that the Appellant harboured mala fide intent at the inception of the relationship.

Since the complaint revealed that the relationship spanned several years (2010–2014), involved meetings with the complainant's family, and even saw police-mediated assurances of marriage, the Court said that these circumstances suggested a genuine relationship that later collapsed, rather than building a sexual relationship on the false promise of marriage to satisfy his lust.

The Court emphasized that a breach of promise is not equivalent to a false promise. While a broken engagement may be a civil or moral wrong, it cannot be criminalized as rape unless deception existed from the very beginning.

Cause Title: PRADEEP KUMAR KESARWANI VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880

Click here to read/download the order

Also From Order: S. 482 CrPC/S.528 BNSS | Supreme Court Lays Down Four-Step Test For High Courts To Quash Criminal Cases