Apex Court holds that unless there is clear proof that the accused never intended to marry from the very beginning, a failed marriage proposal after a long consensual relationship does not amount to rape.
New Delhi, Oct. 1, 2026: The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of raping a woman on the alleged false promise of marriage, ruling that a three-year consensual relationship between two educated adults cannot, by itself, be treated as an offence unless there is clear evidence that the promise to marry was false from the inception.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by Martanda Singh and set aside the charge-sheet and the pending sessions case arising out of FIR No. 191 of 2025 registered at Sirgitti Police Station, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
The case stemmed from a complaint by the woman, an engineering graduate preparing for competitive examinations, who alleged that the appellant had sexually exploited her on the pretext of marriage. According to the complaint, the two met at an academy, fell in love, and later maintained a physical relationship for about three years. The families of both sides had also discussed marriage, but the proposal eventually failed, after which the complaint was lodged.
The Court said the central question was whether the facts disclosed criminal liability for rape on the ground of a false promise to marry. Referring to the precedent in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, the Bench reiterated that to attract such liability, there must be adequate material to show that at the initial stage itself the accused had no intention whatsoever of honouring the promise to marry. A mere failure of the marriage proposal, or a later refusal to marry, is not enough.
The judges observed that the relationship in the present case was admittedly consensual and continued for nearly three years. They noted that the woman had willingly permitted the physical relationship and that there was nothing to show coercion or misrepresentation at the time consent was given. The Court also rejected reliance on an alleged undertaking to marry given before the Mahila Thana Counselling Centre in Bilaspur, saying such an undertaking, made under the threat of criminal prosecution, could not be treated as the foundational promise for the offence.
The Bench further remarked that the complaint itself suggested the relationship began after courtship and continued with full knowledge of the consequences. It described the allegation of a false promise as an afterthought and said criminal law cannot be used as a “strong-arm tactic” to force marriage. The Court noted that the complainant had stated she would drop the charge if the appellant married her, which reinforced the impression that the prosecution was being used as leverage in a personal dispute.
Finding no criminal culpability,
Martanda Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2990908
