SC Clarifies Broken Promise of Marriage Rape Law: Consent, Misuse & Evidentiary Standards

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a crucial ruling in the domain of Criminal Law (Sexual Offences), re-emphasising the critical distinction between consensual sexual relationships that subsequently fail and the heinous crime of rape. In a significant pronouncement, a Bench of the apex court intervened to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), asserting that merely converting a “sour relationship” into a charge of rape trivialises the seriousness and gravity of the offence.

This ruling sends a firm, unambiguous message to police and trial courts across the nation regarding the strict evidentiary standards that must be met before accusations of sexual assault, especially those stemming from failed romantic engagements, can be sustained.

The Factual Matrix: Consent and the Broken Vow

The case before the Supreme Court originated from a complaint filed by a woman against her former partner. The core of the accusation rested on the man’s promise of marriage, which he ultimately failed to keep. The couple had engaged in a long-standing physical relationship, which the court noted was consensual from the outset.

According to the facts presented during the proceedings, the complainant and the accused were adults who had been intimately involved over a period of time. This intimate relationship was predicated on the understanding and expectation of future matrimony, an expectation that was voluntarily offered and accepted. However, as often happens in personal relationships, the connection deteriorated, and the man withdrew from the commitment. Following the relationship’s breakdown, the woman filed a complaint alleging that the sexual intercourse was, in fact, rape because her consent was vitiated by the accused’s false promise of marriage.

The accused subsequently approached the higher judiciary to have the FIR quashed, arguing that the relationship was mutually consensual and that a mere breach of a promise should not constitute a criminal offence of such magnitude. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which examined the entire factual matrix and the specific legal provisions related to consent.

The Critical Distinction: Breach of Promise vs. Vitiated Consent

The crux of the legal issue in cases involving a promise of marriage lies in the interpretation of “consent” as defined under Section 375 of the IPC (which defines rape) and its interaction with Section 90 of the IPC (which defines what constitutes consent given under fear or misconception).

The law clearly mandates that for a sexual act to be considered rape, consent must be absent, or, if present, it must be vitiated. Consent is vitiated if it is obtained under a "misconception of fact." In the context of a promise to marry, the crucial question for the courts is whether the accused had a mala fide (bad faith) intention from the beginning—that is, whether the promise was a fraudulent or deceptive mechanism used solely to procure consent for the sexual act.

The Supreme Court bench carefully reviewed the evidence, which indicated that the relationship was not transient but sustained, and that the promise may have been genuine at one point, with the intention to marry only falling through later due to changed circumstances or the relationship turning "sour."

In such situations, the court noted, the distinction becomes fine yet pivotal:

• Rape: The promise of marriage was false ab initio (from the beginning), made only to deceive the woman into having sexual intercourse. This constitutes consent given under a misconception of fact.

• Failed Relationship: The promise of marriage was genuine when made, but the accused later backed out due to unforeseen circumstances, change of mind, or mutual deterioration of the relationship. This is a simple breach of promise, which may give rise to a civil dispute but does not meet the criminal threshold for rape.

The Court’s factual finding in this specific matter was that the evidence pointed overwhelmingly towards the latter—a failed, consensual relationship rather than an act of violence or fraud.

Court’s Strong Observation: Trivialising a Heinous Offence

In its decisive order quashing the FIR, the Supreme Court delivered a strong rebuke against the burgeoning trend of leveraging rape charges to settle scores in failed relationships. The court was categorical in its warning: treating every broken promise as a criminal offence undermines the legislative intent behind the stringent law against rape.

The Bench’s official observation included the direct caution that “one cannot convert a sour relationship into a rape charge without proof of violence or deception.”

The ruling explicitly stated that to:

• Convert every failed relationship into a rape charge; or

• Treat every instance where a promise of marriage is broken as an act of obtaining consent through misconception of fact,

...would seriously “trivialise the seriousness of the offence” of rape.

This judicial observation underscores that the law is designed to punish genuine sexual violence and coercion, not to act as a punitive measure against personal disappointment or the collapse of a romantic agreement. The court highlighted that such misuse not only diverts judicial resources but also unfairly attaches the stigma of a heinous crime to individuals who, while perhaps guilty of moral or emotional misconduct, have not committed a criminal offence under Section 376 IPC.

Setting the Evidentiary Standard: A Caution to Trial Courts and Police

The impact of this ruling extends directly to the operational procedures of law enforcement agencies and the lower judiciary. The Supreme Court's decision acts as a forceful directive, mandating a higher standard of scrutiny at the initial stages of investigation and trial proceedings.

Key Implications for Law Enforcement and Courts:

1. Strict Scrutiny of Intention: Police investigators and Magistrates must meticulously examine the evidence to ascertain the accused's intention at the time the promise was made. The focus must be on whether the promise was made with the intention of not keeping it and solely for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

2. Evaluating the Relationship’s History: The length, nature, and duration of the relationship—especially the presence of consensual intercourse over a sustained period—must be considered strong indicators that the case is one of a broken vow rather than calculated deceit.

3. Preventing Misuse of Legal Machinery: The ruling instructs trial courts to be vigilant and not be swayed by the mere allegation of 'broken promise of marriage' without corresponding proof of actual coercion or fraudulent intent that vitiated the woman’s consent under the strict definition of the IPC.

By quashing the FIR in question, the Supreme Court reinforced that the fundamental requirement for a rape charge remains genuine coercion or fraud. The law is intended to safeguard women against sexual exploitation and violence, and its punitive measures are reserved for those cases where consent is either forcibly extracted or obtained through bad-faith deception, not simply because a commitment failed to materialise.

The judgment serves as a necessary check, ensuring that the serious provisions of criminal law are invoked only when strict evidentiary standards are met, thus protecting both the integrity of the law and the rights of the accused from unwarranted prosecution arising out of failed personal relationships.