Promise To Marriage & Subsequent Relationship Based On Consent Won't Amount To Rape : Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Case

Reiterating that a consensual relationship based on a promise to marriage will not amount to the offence of rape, the Supreme Court recently quashed a case under the POCSO ACt against a man.

"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 (See: Prithivirajan v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 696, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108)," the Court observed.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar quashed the case against a youth, after noting that the complaint was belatedly filed after three years when she became a major, and no forensic evidence suggested that rape was committed upon the prosecutrix.

“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. 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 states that she consented to the act as there was a promise of marriage by the appellant.”, the court observed.

As per the allegations, the prosecutrix was a minor (aged 15) when she entered into a consensual sexual relationship with the appellant on the promise of marriage. Upon attaining majority, the appellant refused to marry her, and she was allegedly humiliated by his family, prompting the FIR in 2022 against the Appellant, and his family members under Sections 417 (cheating), 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child).

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision not to quash the FIR, the accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned finding, the Court observed that although consensual sex with a minor is technically rape under POCSO, courts can quash cases if no medical evidence supports the claim.

Further, the Court cast doubt over the genuineness of the allegations under POCSO, noting that consensual sex occurred with a minor, but the complaint surfaced only after the relationship broke down post-majority.

The Court also relied on the recent decision in Prithivirajan v. State (2025) to reject the prosecutrix's claim that the appellant committed rape under a false promise of marriage, holding that the relationship was consensual and there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant never intended to marry her from the outset.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the pending FIR against the Appellant stands quashed.

Cause Title: KUNAL CHATTERJEE VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 765

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Sk Sayan Uddin, Adv. Mr. Kunal Malik, AOR Mr. Akash Singh Rana, Adv. Ms. Anna Oommen, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Mrinal Prajapati, Adv. (for State) Mr. Smarhar Singh, Adv. Mr. Bikram Mandal, Adv. (for complainant)