Classic case of consensual relationship turning acrimonious: Supreme Court quashes FIR alleging rape

The Supreme Court on Thursday (5 February 2026) quashed an FIR alleging rape on the pretext of fake marriage, saying the facts clearly show a classic case of a consensual relationship turning acrimonious.

A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the parties should exercise restraint and avoid involving the State in their personal relations that turn into rancor.

The apex court cited some of its earlier judgments, including the one that took note of the disturbing trend of giving criminal hue to failed or broken relationships.

The bench gave its verdict on the appeal challenging the March last year order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had refused to quash the cases arising from the FIR registered in Bilaspur district in February 2025.

The court noted that both the complainant and the defendant in the case were lawyers, and the complainant was a 33-year-old married woman and the mother of an underage child.

The Bench said, “This court has repeatedly ruled that physical intercourse between the parties pursuant to the promise of marriage does not constitute rape in all cases.”

“On careful perusal of the records in the present case, we fail to find any material that would justify the application of Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. The facts of the present case point to a classic case where a clearly consensual relationship has turned acrimonious,” the Bench said.

It was stated that Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides for enhanced punishment in case of repeated rape of a woman.

The Board said that the courts should be extremely careful and cautious in identifying the actual cases filed under the provision by determining the basic elements that constitute the crime.

“Such genuine cases requiring prosecution of the accused must be clearly distinguished from cases arising from consensual relationships between consenting adults who act harshly because of disagreement and disagreement or future change of heart,” he said.

The bench noted that although the divorce case between the complainant and her husband was pending adjudication, it could not in any way be accepted that she was fit to marry the accused in September 2022, when the first of many cases of rape was alleged under the pretext of fake marriage.

“So the law prohibits polygamous unions and therefore does not allow the parties to enter into a second marriage while their first marriage is still ongoing.”

The court said it was difficult to accept the view that the complainant, who was also a lawyer, was unaware of this established legal situation and was encouraged by the defendant to have sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage, especially when his marital status was known.

He said the complainant was not a woman so naive or naive that she could not take decisions on her own.

The court said the complainant should have exercised discretion and discretion before engaging the already burdened State machinery in a roving criminal case.

He observed that the crime alleged against the defendant had not been committed in any way.

Setting aside the high court’s order, the bench quashed the FIR and the cases arising out of it.