'Law prohibits bigamous relationship,' Supreme Court quashes rape case lodged by married advocate

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said the law prohibited bigamous unions and disallowed parties from entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of their first marriage, while quashing a rape case lodged by a married woman advocate against a lawyer of repeated rape on false promise of marriage.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that the mere fact that the parties indulged in physical relations pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case.

Allowing an appeal by Pramod Kumar Navratna against Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment of 2025 refusing to quash the FIR, the court found that the allegation of rape on false pretext of marriage even when taken on its face value, does not amount to an offence of rape and hence not liable for punishment under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC in the case.

The 33-year-old woman advocate with a 10-year-old son alleged during the pendency of divorce proceedings, she came into contact with the appellant who repeatedly raped on promise of marriage and even impregnated her.

In a judgment on February 5, the court, however, opined if indeed, there was a false promise of marriage based on which the accused-appellant indulged in sexual activities, such a promise would not be legally enforceable or even capable of being acted upon as the victim herself was not eligible for marriage, neither on the date of the first alleged act of offence i.e. September 18, 2022 nor on any subsequent dates wherein the parties indulged in the sexual activities, till the point of the date of registration of FIR i.e. February 06, 2025.

The court noted sub-clause (i) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 categorically prohibited marriage between two individuals if either of them have a living spouse. The said position of law has been reiterated under sub clause (i) of Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

The bench highlighted the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in identifying the genuine cases filed under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC by identifying the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence i.e. there should be a promise of marriage made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations and without having any intent of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning, and that such false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations.

"Such genuine cases that deserve prosecution of the accused must be clearly demarcated from the litigation that arises from the cases of consensual relationships between consenting adults going acrimonious on account of dispute and disagreement or a future change of mind,'' the bench said.

The court pointed out, in genuine cases under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, the pattern is usually unmistakable; it is an initial act of sexual assault, followed by multiple acts under fear, pressure, captivity, or continued deceit, often when the woman is rendered vulnerable and unable to escape the situation.

The facts of the present case unmistakably indicated towards a classic case of a consensual relationship turning acrimonious, the court said.

The court noted both parties were aware about the marital status of the victim and therefore it cannot be, by any stretch imagination said that the consent of the complainant has been vitiated or obtained on fraud and misrepresentation made by the accused-appellant.

"The facts of the present case clearly indicate a consensual relationship gone sour whereas both the parties should have exercised restraint and should have refrained from involving the State into their personal relationship turning rancour,'' the bench said.

The court said, the complainant is a 33 years old woman and an advocate by profession and not a naïve or gullible woman incapable of taking decisions for herself.

"Therefore she should have exercised her prudence and discretion before engaging the already burdened State machinery into a roving criminal litigation,'' the bench said.