After 4 Years of Cohabitation, Can Consent Be ‘Misled’? Supreme Court Draws the Line

This order reinforces the distinction between a false promise of marriage and a mere breach of promise, a line that has often blurred in criminal prosecutions. The Court emphasised that consent, once given knowingly and maintained over a substantial period, cannot be invalidated solely due to subsequent souring of relations.

Factual Background

The case arose from a First Information Report (FIR) dated 9 February 2021 lodged by the complainant against the appellant. The allegations included repeated sexual intercourse, unnatural sexual acts, and criminal intimidation.

The complainant had been previously married in 1998 but had been living separately from her husband since 2012. Even before her divorce was finalised, she created a profile on a matrimonial website in 2017 seeking remarriage. It was through this platform that she came into contact with the appellant.

The relationship between the parties developed gradually. The appellant visited the complainant, stayed with her, interacted with her family, and expressed willingness to marry her. The complainant alleged that she believed this promise and eventually divorced her husband.

However, the complaint also revealed that:

• The parties continued a physical relationship over several years.
• They travelled together and stayed in hotels across different cities.
• The complainant transferred money to the appellant.
• The relationship continued even after the alleged first instance of non-consensual intercourse.

The dispute arose when the appellant ultimately refused to marry the complainant in February 2021, leading to the filing of the FIR.

Procedural History

Following the FIR, a chargesheet was filed for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, and 506 of the IPC; (under the BNS, the corresponding provisions are Section 64 and Section 351, while Section 377 stands omitted). The appellant approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking the quashing of proceedings.

The High Court dismissed the petition on two grounds:

1. A previous quashing petition had been withdrawn.
2. The matter required trial.

Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Court

The Supreme Court primarily considered the following legal questions:

1. Whether a long-term consensual relationship can be treated as rape on the basis of a promise to marry.
2. Whether consent given during such a relationship was vitiated by “misconception of fact.”
3. Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the quashing petition.
4. Whether criminal proceedings should continue despite the factual matrix indicating a consensual relationship.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

1. Knowledge and Awareness of Parties

The Court emphasised that both parties were aware of each other’s marital status. The complainant had herself sought remarriage before her divorce was finalised.

The relationship was not entered into under ignorance or deception regarding marital status.

2. Prolonged Consensual Relationship

A crucial factor was the duration and nature of the relationship:

• The parties were in a relationship from 2017 to 2020.
• They travelled together and stayed together multiple times.
• There was no immediate complaint of coercion.

The Court noted:

“Parties have happily cohabited together between 2017 and 2020 and, thereafter, the relationship soured.”

This observation became central to the decision.

3. Delay in Filing Complaint

The alleged first instance of forced sexual intercourse occurred in October 2017. However, the complaint was filed only in February 2021.

The Court considered this delay significant, especially since:

• The relationship continued even after the alleged incident.
• There was no contemporaneous complaint.

4. Absence of Direct Nexus Between Promise and Consent

The Court highlighted that for consent to be vitiated under Section 375 IPC (Section 63 of BNS), it must be shown that:

• The promise of marriage was false from the very beginning, and
• The sexual relationship occurred solely because of that promise.

In the present case, the Court found no such direct nexus.

Findings of the Court

The Supreme Court concluded:

1. The relationship was consensual and prolonged.
2. The complainant was aware of the circumstances.
3. The alleged promise of marriage was not proven to be false from inception.
4. The complaint was filed only after the relationship deteriorated.

Accordingly, the Court held that:

This was not a case of rape induced by deception but a failed relationship later given a criminal colour.

Maintainability of Second Quashing Petition

The Court also addressed the High Court’s reasoning regarding maintainability.

It held that:

• There is no absolute bar on filing a second quashing petition.
• The earlier petition was withdrawn without adjudication on merits.

Thus, the High Court erred in rejecting the petition on this ground.

Final Order

The Supreme Court:

• Allowed the appeal,
• Set aside the High Court’s order,
• Quashed RCC No. 328/2021 pending before the Magistrate,
• Discharged all bail bonds.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shaileshbhai Govindbhai Makwana v. State of Maharashtra marks an important reaffirmation of the principles governing consent and criminal liability in intimate relationships.

By holding that a four-year consensual relationship cannot be retrospectively labelled as rape merely due to a failed promise of marriage, the Court has drawn a necessary legal boundary. It reiterates that criminal law cannot be invoked to settle personal grievances arising from broken relationships unless there is clear evidence of deception from the outset.

Consent, once freely given and sustained over time, cannot be invalidated solely because the relationship did not culminate in marriage.

Click Here to Read the Official Order

Important Link