SUPREME COURT REITERATES PROMISE OF MARRIAGE DOES NOT PER SE CONSTITUTE RAPE; PROCEEDINGS QUASHED IN POCSO CASE
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant Judgment in the case titled Kunal Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal (SLP Crl. No. 7004 of 2025), which has important implications for the interpretation of laws concerning promises on pretext of marriage, consensual relationships, and allegations of rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The decision was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Factual Background
The matter involved accusations under Sections 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 417 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 34 (common intention), as well as under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which deals with sexual offences against minors. The Complainant had filed the First Information Report (FIR) years after she had a physical relationship with the Accused, claiming she was originally 15 years old and the relationship was initiated based on a promise of marriage.
According to the FIR, after she became an adult, the Accused allegedly reneged on the promise to marry, and following humiliation by the Accused’s family, she lodged the complaint. The Calcutta High Court had earlier quashed the proceedings against the Accused’s father, mother, and uncle but retained the case against the Accused. The Accused thereafter preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
The Supreme Court examined the facts and noted that the FIR was filed more than three years after the alleged incident. Crucially, the Complainant, now a major, had categorically admitted that the relationship was consensual. She further stated that the same was entered into, based on the promise of marriage. The Court found no forensic or medical evidence supporting the claim of rape when the Prosecutrix was a minor.
The Bench rejected submissions by the State and Complainant that any minor’s consent is legally invalid and that the serious charges under POCSO were made out. The Court observed that the long delay in lodging the FIR and the circumstances suggested an abuse of legal process designed to invoke the POCSO Act unjustly.
Importantly, the Supreme Court referred to earlier precedent cases such as Prithivirajan v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 696, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108). These cases had established that a promise of marriage coupled with a consensual physical relationship does not amount to rape under Indian law. The Court reiterated that a consensual relationship based on a marriage promise, if broken later, does not automatically constitute a criminal offence like rape.
Legal Reasoning on Consent and POCSO Act
Although the POCSO Act rigorously safeguards minors against sexual offenses, the Court clarified that a significant delay in lodging the FIR after the relationship ended, along with a lack of evidence showing absence of consent or any coercion, undermines the reliability of the prosecution’s case.
The Court emphasized the need for careful judicial scrutiny before criminal proceedings are allowed to proceed, especially where allegations are made long after the event with no supporting evidence.
Verdict and Implications
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against him completely, stating that the FIR and prosecution were a misuse of the legal process.
This verdict highlights the judiciary’s cautious approach against abuse of laws meant to protect minors when the facts indicate a consensual relationship that later soured. It establishes that the promise of marriage and consensual physical intimacy, though morally complex, will not be automatically criminalized as rape, especially in the presence of a delay and lack of corroborative evidence.
Conclusion
This ruling represents an important legal clarification that carefully balances the rights of minors, the importance of genuine consent, and safeguards against wrongful allegations. It underscores the need to differentiate between genuine cases of sexual exploitation and cases where laws are invoked to pursue personal vendettas after a consensual relationship ends. The Supreme Court’s ruling provides a precedent for future cases where physical relationships stem from a promise of marriage, reinforcing the principle that such relationships, when consensual, do not constitute criminal rape under the IPC or POCSO Act.
This case thus serves as a reminder that the legal system must be vigilant to prevent misuse while continuing to robustly protect minors from genuine abuse.
Yash Hari Dixit
Associate
The Indian Lawyer and 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 What Is Impeachment? Legal Process to Remove Judges and Officials in India | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma | can be viewed at the link below: