INTRODUCTION
In Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., 2026 INSC 124, decided on 5 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered a crucial Judgment drawing a firm constitutional and criminal law boundary between genuine sexual offences and consensual relationships that subsequently turn acrimonious.
The Court quashed an FIR and the entire criminal proceedings under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, holding that a consensual relationship between adults cannot be given the colour of rape merely because it does not culminate in marriage, especially when such marriage was legally impermissible from the outset.
BRIEF FACTS
The Complainant, a 33-year-old Advocate, was married and had a 10–11-year-old child. Divorce proceedings initiated by her husband were pending at the relevant time. In September 2022, she came into contact with the Accused, also an Advocate and the two developed a relationship.
In February 2025, the Complainant lodged an FIR alleging that the Accused had repeatedly raped her on a false promise of marriage, leading to registration of an offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. It was alleged that the Accused induced sexual relations on the assurance of marriage, later refused to marry her, forced abortion and subjected her to harassment.
The Accused sought quashing of the FIR before the Chhattisgarh High Court, which declined interference, observing that the issue of consent and false promise required investigation. During the pendency, a charge-sheet was filed and a Sessions Trial commenced.
Aggrieved, the Accused approached the Supreme Court.
ISSUES OF LAW
The Supreme Court was called upon to determine:
1) Whether a consensual sexual relationship between adults can amount to rape on the ground of a false promise of marriage.
2) Whether Section 376(2)(n) IPC (repeated rape) can apply where the prosecutrix herself was legally incapable of entering into marriage.
3) Whether continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law in the facts of the case.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Court undertook a careful examination of the statutory framework under Sections 375 and 376 IPC, along with settled precedent on consent, misconception of fact and abuse of criminal process.
1. Legal Impossibility of Marriage Defeats “False Promise”
A central pillar of the Judgment is the Court’s finding that the Complainant was legally incapable of marrying the Accused at the relevant time due to the subsistence of her marriage. Relying on Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 4(i) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the Court held that bigamous marriages are legally prohibited.
Consequently, even assuming a promise of marriage was made, such promise could not be legally acted upon and therefore could not constitute a misconception of fact sufficient to vitiate consent.
2. Distinction Between False Promise and Breach of Promise
Reaffirming earlier precedents, including Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that a false promise implies deception at inception with no intention to marry. Also, a breach of promise due to later circumstances does not amount to rape.
The Court found no material suggesting that the Accused had, from the very beginning, deceived the Complainant solely to obtain sexual consent.
3. Section 376(2)(n) IPC Inapplicable
The Court emphasised that Section 376(2)(n) is intended to cover aggravated sexual assault, where repeated acts occur under coercion, exploitation or continuing deception. In contrast, the present case reflected a voluntary, continuing relationship between two consenting adults, which later deteriorated. The Bench held that such facts do not satisfy the statutory threshold for “rape repeatedly on the same woman”.
4. Misuse of Criminal Process
Invoking the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of the criminal justice machinery. It cautioned against a growing tendency to criminalise failed relationships, observing that doing so trivialises the gravity of rape as an offence and inflicts irreversible stigma on the accused.
The Court also took note of the Complainant’s professional background as an Advocate, underscoring that she could not be regarded as naive or unaware of legal consequences.
CONCLUSION
This Judgment is a strong reaffirmation that rape laws must protect genuine victims of sexual violence, not become instruments for settling personal disputes arising from failed relationships. The Supreme Court has drawn a clear doctrinal line:
1) A consensual relationship between adults, even if emotionally fraught or morally questionable, does not become rape merely because it ends badly or marriage does not materialise.
2) By quashing the FIR and the Trial, the Court has reinforced the sanctity of free and informed consent. Furthermore, the necessity of legal possibility in claims of false promise of marriage. Lastly, the obligation of courts to prevent misuse of serious penal provisions
The ruling serves as an important safeguard against the dilution of rape jurisprudence and ensures that criminal law remains a tool for justice, not vendetta.
SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “FALSE AND MISLEADING ADVERTISING LAWS IN INDIA: Legal Analysis 2026 by Adv Sushila Ram Varma” can be viewed at the link below: