Karnataka HC quashes rape case, says breakup cannot turn consensual sex into crime

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of rape and cheating, holding that a consensual relationship that later turns acrimonious cannot automatically be given a criminal colour merely because it ended without marriage.

The case involved two college mates who were in a relationship for around two years before the woman lodged a complaint alleging that the physical relationship was maintained on the assurance of marriage.

The High Court, however, found that the material on record did not prima facie establish the offence of rape and ordered that the criminal proceedings be quashed against the petitioner.

COURT EXAMINES CASE DESPITE SETTLEMENT

During the proceedings, the complainant expressed unwillingness to pursue the case and sought a settlement with the accused.

However, the High Court noted that since the allegations involved the serious offence of rape, it could not terminate the proceedings solely because the parties had settled the matter. It therefore examined the allegations and the material on record on their merits.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191, as well as earlier judgments including Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46 and Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 88.

These judgments establish that a promise to marry followed by a failure to marry does not, by itself, mean that the woman's consent was obtained under a misconception of fact.

The key issue, the Court reiterated, is whether the man had a dishonest intention from the very beginning to deceive the woman and obtain sexual relations on the basis of that promise.

FALSE PROMISE OR CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIP?

The High Court also relied on the Supreme Court's more recent decision in Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528.

The judgments distinguish between two situations: a relationship that was genuinely consensual but subsequently broke down, and one that was initiated through a false promise of marriage made with a fraudulent intention from the outset.

In Samadhan, as quoted in the Karnataka High Court's order, the Supreme Court observed that where physical intimacy continues over a prolonged period in an emotionally involved relationship, it cannot automatically be treated as rape merely because the relationship ultimately does not result in marriage.

The Court also emphasised that for consent to be considered vitiated on the ground of a false promise of marriage, the physical relationship must have a direct nexus with that false promise.

KARNATAKA HC FINDS NO FALSE PROMISE FROM INCEPTION

Applying these principles to the case, the Karnataka High Court found that the material indicated a consensual relationship that had subsequently turned acrimonious.

The Court found no material to demonstrate that the man had made a false promise of marriage from the outset with the intention of deceiving the complainant.

The High Court also clarified that genuine cases involving coercion, sexual violence or a promise of marriage that was demonstrably false from the beginning must continue to receive the protection of criminal law. However, such allegations must be supported by credible evidence and concrete circumstances.

Concluding that the alleged offence was not made out, and also taking note of the settlement between the parties, the High Court ordered that the criminal proceedings be quashed against the petitioner.