Supreme Court Clarifies: Promise to Marry and Consensual Relationship Based on Consent Do Not Amount to Rape—POCSO Case Quashed

Post published:August 6, 2025
Post category:Blog / Supreme Court
Reading time:5 mins read

Supreme Court Clarifies: Promise to Marry and Consensual Relationship Based on Consent Do Not Amount to Rape—POCSO Case Quashed

Introduction
Case Background: Allegations and Proceedings
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
1. Promise to Marry ≠ Automatic Rape
2. Delay and Lack of Evidence
3. Nature of Consent and Intention
4. Guidelines for Lower Courts and Authorities
Legal and Social Implications
1. Restores Nuance to Consent
2. Clarity on POCSO and Sexual Offences
3. Reference to Legal Precedents
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Key Excerpts from the Judgment
Conclusion

Introduction

In a significant development for legal interpretation of consent, relationships, and sexual offences, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that a consensual sexual relationship entered on a promise of marriage will not, by itself, amount to rape. The apex court quashed a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) case against a man, reiterating that the real test is the presence of a false promise made solely to obtain consent, and not every breakdown of a relationship or failure to marry gives rise to criminal liability.

This decision clarifies and strengthens earlier precedents, providing crucial guidance for both the judiciary and law enforcement while safeguarding against the misuse of criminal law in matters often rooted in personal disputes.

Case Background: Allegations and Proceedings

The prosecutrix, who was allegedly a minor (aged 15) when she entered into a relationship with the accused on a promise of marriage, filed a criminal case only after she attained adulthood. She claimed the accused had promised to marry her, engaged in consensual sex, and later refused marriage leading to humiliation and a subsequent complaint under Sections 417 (cheating), 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

The accused’s appeal to the Supreme Court came after the High Court declined to quash the FIR.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings

1. Promise to Marry ≠ Automatic Rape

The Court relied on a consistent line of judgments (including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, and most recently, Prithivirajan v. State) which hold that:
- Not every promise to marry followed by consensual relations constitutes rape.
- The offence of rape is made out only if the promise to marry was false from the beginning, made with no intention of being fulfilled, and was instrumental in securing consent.

2. Delay and Lack of Evidence

The bench noted the complaint surfaced three years after the alleged incident, once the prosecutrix was an adult.
There was no forensic or medical evidence supporting the occurrence of rape during her minority as claimed.

The Court highlighted that the prosecutrix expressly stated she consented to sex on the basis of an honest belief that the relationship would culminate in marriage.
The prosecution failed to demonstrate that the accused never intended to marry her from the very outset—an essential element for such cases to amount to rape or aggravated sexual assault under POCSO.
“A breach of a promise to marry, without fraudulent intent at inception, does not vitiate consent and does not amount to rape,” observed the Justices.

4. Guidelines for Lower Courts and Authorities

Where a complaint is filed solely after the alleged relationship ends, without prompt allegations or evidence of force, coercion, or false promises, criminal law should not become a tool to settle personal grievances.
Courts should scrutinize the sequence—especially repeated or willing acts of intercourse over time, delay in filing complaints, and admitted consent before accepting criminal allegations.

The judgment recognizes the complexity of adult and adolescent relationships and reinforces that not every failed promise or romantic breakdown is a crime. This both upholds women’s agency in making consensual decisions and protects men against false or belated accusations.

2. Clarity on POCSO and Sexual Offences

While consensual sex with a minor technically falls under statutory rape and POCSO, this case demonstrates that:

Courts retain powers under Section 482 CrPC and related provisions to quash baseless or malicious proceedings, especially where medical evidence and timelines do not support the prosecution’s version.
Criminal law cannot be invoked retrospectively to address relationship breakdowns.

3. Reference to Legal Precedents

The ruling draws on landmark Supreme Court cases:

Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608
Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108
Prithivirajan v. State (2025 SCC OnLine SC 696)
These have consistently emphasized that fraudulent intent at inception is key; mere non-fulfillment of a genuine marriage promise is not enough for criminal liability.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: Does every broken promise to marry amount to rape?
A: No. Only if the promise was false and intended to deceive at the start, solely for obtaining sexual consent.

Q: What if consensual sex occurs with a minor?
A: Technically, any sex with a minor is statutory rape, but courts can quash such cases if there’s no supporting evidence and if the relationship seems otherwise consensual and the complaint is belated or motivated.

Q: What should courts look for?
A: Courts must differentiate between genuine unwarranted promises and those made in bad faith with no intention to marry, as well as consider evidence, timing, sequence of events, and whether any coercion, force, or abuse of position was involved.

Key Excerpts from the Judgment

“A promise to marriage and the subsequent physical relationship based on consent would not amount to rape… Unless the promise was false from inception.”
“Delay in reporting, lack of forensic evidence, and the nature of the relationship all must be considered before converting a failed affair into criminal proceedings.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling, by quashing the POCSO case in this instance, offers both a safeguard against misuse of criminal process and a reaffirmation of the sanctity and complexity of consent. It provides invaluable guidance for lower courts, police, relationship partners, and society on the distinction between consent and coercion, and between a genuinely failed romance and actionable sexual offence.

Moving forward, this precedent will help curb the criminalization of private disputes while ensuring authentic cases of abuse continue to receive the full protection of the law.

References