SC Quashes Rape Case On a Man On False Promise Of Marriage

It is definitely in the fitness of things that while calling the FIRs that had been registered against a man involving serious allegations of rape on false promise of marriage and SC-ST Act violations as a “bundle of lies”, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag vs State of Telangana & Anr in Criminal Appeal No(s). 2879 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No(s). 3316 of 2023 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 790 that was pronounced as recently as on May 29, 2025 has held that the accused was justified in panicking and backing out from the proposed marriage upon coming to know of the aggressive sexual behavior and the obsessive nature of the de-facto complainant. We need to note that the appeal before the Apex Court was filed against an order of the Telangana High Court whereby the petition that had been filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR that had been registered for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was rejected. We thus see that on a bare perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that there was no prima facie material on record to substantiate the allegations of cheating or sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage against the accused-appellant. The Bench thus allowed the appeal of the accused-appellant and quashed the FIRs in question.

There can be just no gainsaying that it is high time and lawmakers must now definitely amend the rape laws and if a woman has sex with a men without force being used then it should not be termed rape! Why should a woman get ready to have sex with men without marriage and only on promise of marriage surrender her body willingly and later cry rape? This definitely merits prompt changes so that a woman whether married or unmarried stops having sex with men on any pretext whatsoever without marriage being consummated so that it acts as a strong deterrent to woman not to have sex with any men on any pretext whatsoever and also go a long way in checking misuse of rape laws against men by woman who for years has sex with men enjoying and later suddenly cry rape waking up after a long time and forwards promise of marriage as most favourite excuse for surrendering her body to him!

It merits just no reiteration that the earlier this is done, the better it shall be! This will definitely usher in morality and women will think thousands times before having sex with men without consummation of marriage and will definitely go a long way in nipping in the bud the most regressive practice of women surrendering her body on pretext of marriage for years and later terming it as rape! It definitely brooks no more delay anymore longer now! It will also go a long way in checking abuse of penal laws meant for safety of women but which in reality are used as potent weapons to extract money from men and to put him in trouble by sending him to jail if he refuses to extract money or toe her line as she wants! This is what I find most unsettling which cannot be ever justified under any circumstances!

In addition, if a woman files false complaints of rape and it is proved that she did it intentionally then definitely she must be jailed for at least few years and also made to pay huge compensation to men so that it acts as a strong deterrent against the growing nefarious tendency of exploiting women safety laws as potent dangerous tools to harass, humiliate and harangue men and extort huge money from them and if they don’t comply then make them suffer huge imprisonment in jail for just no fault of theirs! The buck must stop now on this count! It is definitely most deeply disappointing that even in new revised penal laws we see no such changes having been made but still these much desired compelling changes can be incorporated in new revised penal laws also if Parliament and law makers collectively take action on this count at the earliest! No denying it!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sandeep Mehta for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram Nath and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 3 that, “Despite service of notice, respondent No.2-defacto complainant (Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘de-facto complainant’) has not put in appearance.”

As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 4 stating that, “The appellant herein seeks to assail the order dated 13th December, 2022, passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, (Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘High Court’) whereby the petition (Criminal Petition No. 1759 of 2022) filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 103 of 2022 registered at the Police Station Madhapur, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘SC/ST(POA) Act’) was rejected.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench while elaborating on facts of the case succinctly states in para 6 mentioning that, “The de-facto complainant i.e., respondent No.2 filed a complaint before Police Station Madhapur alleging inter alia that she had earlier filed a complaint against the accused i.e., appellant herein, and during the course of enquiry of the said complaint, the appellant approached the police station along with his mother J. Vijayalakshmi and a resolution was arrived at, between the parties in the presence of the Inspector of Police to the effect that the appellant would marry the de-facto complainant and get the marriage registered at the registration office or the Arya Samaj Mandir. A written agreement to this effect was drawn up and affirmed by the de-facto complainant and the appellant by affixing their signatures. However, the accused appellant and his mother started showing reluctance to the marriage on one pretext or the other. They made up an excuse that the next auspicious date for solemnizing the marriage was only on 26th August and stopped communicating with the de-facto complainant or her family about wedding arrangements, etc. The accused appellant then started mentally harassing the complainant with reference to the complaint she had filed at the police station. When she expressed a desire to discuss the wedding arrangements and resolve the issues about the family’s cold behaviour, the accused appellant went to the de-facto complainant’s house on 24th June, 2021 and compelled her to indulge in sexual intercourse without ever intending to go through with the marriage ceremonies. Being perturbed, the de-facto complainant went to the police station on 25th June, 2021 and reported that the accused appellant was not keeping his word and was showing reluctance in abiding by the terms of the agreement. On the same night, the accused appellant’s mother called the de-facto complainant’s parents. On 26th June, 2021, the accused appellant visited the de-facto complainant and pressurized her to withdraw the complaint and inform the Inspector of Police that all the allegations levelled by her against him were false. This incident was reported by the de-facto complainant to the SHE Team Police. Inspite thereof, the accused appellant did not mend his ways and he along with his mother continued to harass the de-facto complainant and raised new demands about the wedding.”

Do note, the Bench notes in para 19 that, “At the outset, we may note that the police has already submitted a closure report dated 6th June, 2024, in FIR No. 751 of 2021 whereas, a chargesheet dated 30th August, 2024, has been filed in FIR No. 103 of 2022. The closure report in the FIR No. 751 of 2021 which has been placed on record, indicates that previously also, i.e., on 23rd January, 2019, the de-facto complainant had lodged a similar complaint at the Police Station, Osmania University, Hyderabad City accusing one ‘Dr. Ranjit Thankappan’, who at the time was working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Osmania University, for identical allegations of cheating and sexual exploitation on the pretext of a false promise of marriage.”

It is worth paying attention that the Bench points out in para 22 that, “Upon appreciating the facts and circumstances narrated above and having given thoughtful consideration to the allegations as set out in the FIR and the chargesheet placed on record by the accused appellant, we find that there is no material what to say of prima facie material on record to substantiate the allegations of cheating or sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage against the accused appellant. The allegations levelled in FIR No. 751 of 2021, dated 29th June, 2021, and the impugned FIR No. 103 of 2022 are at great variance and the inherent contradictions in the two reports over the same subject matter cannot be reconciled.”

It cannot be lost on us that the Bench points out in para 23 stating that, “The de-facto complainant is a highly educated woman aged 30 years. In FIR No. 751 of 2021, she has only alleged about a single sexual encounter dated 24th June, 2021. On the contrary, in the impugned FIR No. 103 of 2022 which came to be lodged on 1st February, 2022, 4-5 such incidents have been referenced each of which ante-date the FIR No. 751 of 2021. It is thus inherently improbable that the complainant would have forgotten or omitted to mention these incidents of sexual intercourse made under a false promise of marriage while filing the earlier FIR No. 751 of 2021 because all the incidents had already taken place as per the version of the complainant up to 7th June, 2021 whereas, the FIR No. 751 of 2021 came to be lodged on 29th June, 2021.”

Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 24 that, “A very interesting fact which emerges upon perusal of the closure report in FIR No. 751 of 2021 is that the de-facto complainant had filed a similar FIR against an Assistant Professor of Osmania University, where she was studying.”

Most significantly, the Bench lays bare in para 25 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “In the chats which have been placed on record along with the additional documents, the de-facto complainant, who is referred to by the name ‘Muffin’, has admitted that she was manipulative and was trying to “get a green card holder”. At one point of time, she also stated that it would not be difficult for her to trap the next one. In the very same breath, she mentions that she would not waste time with the accused appellant and needs to “invest on the next victim”. She also mentions that she would irritate her victims to the extent that they dump her, and she could happily start with the next one. She also stated that she was using the accused appellant.”

Do further note, the Bench notes in para 26 that, “These chats depict the stark reality about the behavioral pattern of the de-facto complainant who appears to be having manipulative and vindictive tendency.”

Quite significantly, the Bench holds in para 27 that, “Thus, in our opinion, the accused appellant was absolutely justified in panicking and backing out from the proposed marriage upon coming to know of the aggressive sexual behaviour and the obsessive nature of the de-facto complainant.”

Most rationally, the Bench deemed it fit to hold in para 28 that, “Hence, even assuming that the accused appellant retracted from his promise to marry the complainant, it cannot be said that he indulged in sexual intercourse with the de-facto complainant under a false promise of marriage or that the offence was committed by him with the de-facto complainant on the ground that she belonged to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community.”

It cannot be lost sight of that the Bench notes in para 29 that, “It is also relevant to mention here that in FIR No. 751 of 2021, the de-facto complainant has not even made a whisper about the accused appellant dumping her on the ground of her caste. Thus, apparently this allegation which has been set out in the subsequent FIR No. 103 of 2022 lodged almost after seven months is nothing but a sheer exaggeration which must be discarded.”

Far most significantly, the Bench then clearly holds in para 30 that, “Having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record, we are of the firm opinion that allowing prosecution of the accused appellant to continue in the impugned FIR No. 103 of 2022 would be nothing short of a travesty of justice in addition to being a gross abuse of the process of Court. The impugned FIR No. 103 of 2022 is nothing but a bundle of lies full of fabricated and malicious unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the complainant. The facts on record clearly establish the vindictive and manipulative tendencies of the complainant and these aspects have a great bearing on the controversy.”

As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 31 that, “Resultantly, FIR bearing Crime No. 103 of 2022 dated 1st February, 2022, FIR bearing Crime No. 751 of 2021 dated 29th June, 2021, and all proceedings sought to be taken as a consequence thereof, are quashed in entirety.”

Further, the Bench then holds in para 32 that, “The appeal is allowed accordingly.”

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 33 that, “Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”