Criminal Law Cannot Be Used to Force Marriage: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Charges After Three-Year Consensual Relationship

The Supreme Court of India has quashed criminal rape proceedings initiated against a man by his former partner following the breakdown of a three-year consensual relationship, holding that the criminal justice system cannot be reduced to a "strong-arm tactic" to compel marriage.

A bench of the apex court allowed a criminal appeal filed by Martanda Singh challenging a prosecution initiated in Chhattisgarh, quashing a chargesheet and ordering the complete closure of a sessions trial pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bilaspur. The complainant, an educated adult woman, had alleged that she engaged in physical intimacy during courtship under the pretext of marriage, but subsequently offered to withdraw the criminal case if the appellant agreed to marry her.

Rejecting the prosecution, the Supreme Court ruled that where educated adults enter into an extended consensual relationship with full knowledge of consequences, consent cannot be retrospectively labeled as obtained under a "misconception of fact" merely because marriage did not materialize. The Court found no fraudulent intent at the inception and held that an unfulfilled promise cannot be equated with the offence of rape.

Legal Topic

Area of Law: Criminal Law / Gender Jurisprudence
Sub-topic: Rape Allegations on Pretext of Marriage / Vitiation of Consent under Section 90 IPC

Core Legal Issue

Does the failure to marry following an extended, voluntary courtship spanning three years constitute the offence of rape under Section 375/376 of the Indian Penal Code on the theory that consent was vitiated by a "misconception of fact" under Section 90?

Furthermore, can a complainant utilize the threat of an ongoing criminal rape prosecution as coercive leverage to force an accused partner into a marital alliance?

What Did the Court Decide?

The Supreme Court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 4722 of 2026, quashing Charge Sheet No. 199 of 2025 and closing all proceedings in Sessions Case No. 216 of 2025 before the Fast Track Court in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

The Court held that it was unable to find any criminal culpability on the part of the appellant, ruling that the parties entered into a voluntary, consensual relationship where consent was neither coerced nor obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation.

The bench firmly rejected the complainant's conditional offer to drop charges upon marriage, declaring that criminal prosecution cannot be converted into an arm-twisting tool to enforce personal relationships. The Court ruled that the allegation of physical relations occurring on the "pretext of marriage" was an afterthought.

Key Legal Points

• The Supreme Court reiterated that criminal proceedings cannot be reduced to a strong-arm tactic to pressure or compel an individual into marriage.

• The bench held that consent under "fear or misconception of fact" under Section 90 IPC cannot be loosely or casually inferred to fasten criminal liability when two educated adults willingly enter into an intimate relationship.

• The Court emphasized the vital legal distinction between a fraudulent promise made at the inception solely to extract sexual consent and a subsequent breach of promise arising from personal or familial discord.

• The bench observed that where physical intimacy continues across a prolonged three-year courtship, claiming that consent was vitiated from the outset is legally untenable and constitutes an afterthought.

• The Court ordered the total quashing of the chargesheet and trial proceedings, holding that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.

Relevant Law

• Section 375 and Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Definition and punishment for rape, including repeated sexual intercourse on the same woman.

• Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Consent known to be given under fear of injury or misconception of fact.

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Inherent powers of superior courts to quash abusive criminal proceedings.

• Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608: Landmark Supreme Court ruling distinguishing between a false promise to marry and a breach of promise.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner / Appellant (Martanda Singh):
Represented by Senior Advocate Dr. Rajesh Pandey and Advocate-on-Record Aswathi M.K., the appellant submitted that both individuals were educated adults who entered into a mutual, consensual romantic partnership after courtship lasting over three years. Counsel argued that there was no false promise or deceit at the inception, and that the failure of marriage discussions due to subsequent incompatibilities cannot retrospectively criminalize voluntary intimacy as rape.

Respondent / State & Complainant:
Represented by Standing Counsel Vinayak Sharma and Advocate-on-Record Ravinder Kumar Yadav, the State and the complainant contended that physical relations were permitted exclusively based on the appellant's express assurance of marriage. They argued that the appellant's eventual refusal to marry breached this foundational understanding, thereby vitiating the complainant's consent under Section 90 IPC and requiring adjudication through a full criminal trial.

Why Does It Matter?

This verdict provides essential clarity on an issue that frequently burdens criminal courts: the weaponization of rape laws following the breakdown of consensual relationships. Section 376 IPC carries grave social stigma and mandatory minimum sentences; using it to negotiate marriage or punish a former partner severely distorts the purpose of criminal justice.

By reiterating that criminal law cannot serve as coercive leverage to enforce marriage, the Supreme Court protects adult autonomy and personal liberty. The decision ensures that rape prosecutions remain strictly focused on genuine sexual violence and calculated deceit, preventing criminal courts from being converted into forums for enforcing broken matrimonial promises.

Legal Takeaway

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a breach of promise to marry after an extended, voluntary courtship between educated adults does not amount to rape. Criminal prosecution cannot be used as a strong-arm tactic to force marriage, and consent cannot be retrospectively invalidated under Section 90 IPC in the absence of evidence demonstrating that the promise was fraudulent from its inception.

Sources

• Primary Source: Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Martanda Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 4722 of 2026, Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1582 of 2026, reported at 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1015).

• Additional Sources: LiveLaw Supreme Court Report; Hindustan Times Legal Coverage.