SC Quashes Rape FIR in Live-in Case: Consent & False Promise Clarified

QUASHING OF FIR IN RAPE CASE

In a significant judgment delivered on April 28, 2025, the Supreme Court in the case of Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 2438 of 2025 quashed an FIR alleging rape and other offences, registered under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 holding that a prolonged consensual live-in relationship cannot be converted into a rape case merely because the relationship did not culminate into a legal marriage.

The fact of the Case:-

The complainant who is the second respondent in the present appeal had lodged a First Information Report in the police station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar on 23.11.2023 against the appellant, inter-alia, alleging that on 06.02.2021, the informant got introduced to the appellant through Face book; after introduction, they began a live-in relationship; during this period the appellant rented a room at Khatima and established physical relationship many times with a promise to marry the informant. Physical relationship continued though at times, the informant was abused and beaten. Later, when the informant insisted on marriage, the appellant refused to marry and instead threatened the informant; and forcibly established a physical relationship on 18.11.2023. The appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging an order of the Uttarakhand High Court dated 11.12.2024, which had dismissed his petition for quashing FIR No. 482 of 2023 registered under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 IPC.

 Submissions of the parties:-

It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that both parties were adults who willingly entered into a live-in relationship for over two years. A mutual settlement agreement dated 19.11.2023, signed by both parties, indicated that they loved each other and had agreed to register their marriage. This agreement, made just a day after the alleged sexual assault, negated any suggestion of coercion or assault. Therefore, the FIR, according to the appellant, was motivated, mala fide, and an abuse of the legal process. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant argued that the agreement itself stated that legal action would follow if marriage was not formalized, and thus, the FIR was a legitimate consequence of that breach. Citing Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, it was argued that consent obtained under a false promise of marriage vitiates consent under Section 375 IPC.

Important factors are taken into consideration:-

The Supreme Court, speaking through Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, conducted a detailed analysis of the relationship dynamics, and the legal framework on "consent," and considered the following key issues-

• The parties had been in a consensual live-in relationship for over two years. An overview of the facts makes it clear that the relationship between the appellant and the second respondent (the informant) has been there since 2021.

• The FIR did not state that the physical relationship was established solely on the promise of marriage.

• The complainant never objected to the relationship during the entire two-year period.

• Admittedly the parties have executed a settlement deed on 19.11.2023, which reads as “The agreement has been made today 19.11.2023 between the first party (name and address of the second respondent) and the second party (name and address of the appellant), on the advice of the respected persons with the condition that both are living together since 12th August so we must conduct Mangbhari and live like husband and wife in the room and we would hand over our papers today to the Advocate to register their marriage and they would get the registration done going to the Court. If the second party violates the agreement, legal action can be taken against us. We both the parties known each other since February 2021. We love each other.”

• 
  

Observation of the Court:-

The Supreme Court observed that the allegations in the FIR, particularly under Section 376 IPC, were unsubstantiated and contradicted by documentary evidence. It quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, stating that continuation of prosecution in such circumstances would be an abuse of the court's process. The Court also emphasized that in such cases, courts must distinguish between a false promise made with mala fide intent at the inception and a mere breach of promise due to later circumstances. Citing Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of U.P. (2021) 18 SCC 517, the Court reiterated that live-in relationships between consenting adults cannot automatically give rise to a presumption of rape merely because the man later refuses to marry. The court further observed that “If two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences.”

Conclusion:-

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, terming it an “abuse of the process of the court.” This judgment reinforces the legal standard that a false promise of marriage must be established by clear evidence of mala fide intent at the time the promise was made. It also marks a progressive interpretation of live-in relationships, affirming that adult consensual cohabitation cannot be casually criminalized under the pretext of false promises. This decision sets a precedent reinforcing the need for courts to distinguish between genuine cases of sexual exploitation and consensual relationships that turn sour. The ruling not only upholds the rights of individuals in consensual live-in relationships but also safeguards against the misuse of criminal law in private matters where no coercion, deception, or injury is discernible.