Promise of Marriage Is Not Rape Supreme Court Quashes Rape Complaint Filed after 4 Years

Court Quashes False Summons

The Supreme Court has once again emphasized that Promise of Marriage Is Not Rape when allegations are frivolous and lack substance. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta quashed summons issued against Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, accused in 2014 of raping a woman since 2010 on the pretext of marriage.

The Court found the complaint defective, delayed, and unsupported by evidence. It ruled that continuing such proceedings would be a gross abuse of law and judicial process.

Summoning on False Allegations Is Serious

The bench criticized lower courts for allowing the matter to proceed without proper scrutiny. It observed that summoning a person on weak or vindictive allegations tarnishes reputation and forces unnecessary litigation.

“Summoning any person on the basis of frivolous or vexatious complaints is very serious, as it tarnishes the image of the person against whom false allegations are levelled,” the judges noted. The Court underlined that Promise of Marriage Is Not Rape unless mala fide intent to deceive is clearly established.

Distinction between Broken Promise and Deceit

The Court explained that judges must carefully assess whether the promise of marriage was genuine or fraudulent. If the promise was made in good faith but the relationship later failed, it cannot be treated as rape. Only when a man promises marriage with deceitful intent, solely to exploit the woman, can such conduct fall within the ambit of rape or cheating.

This distinction reaffirmed the principle that Promise of Marriage Is Not Rape when the relationship is consensual and not based on deliberate deception.

Complaint Riddled with Defects

The bench pointed out several shortcomings in the case:

• The woman filed the complaint four years late, without explaining the delay.
• Allegations lacked dates, places, and specific details of the offences.
• The accused’s parents were unnecessarily implicated, suggesting a vindictive motive.
• No independent evidence supported the claims.

The Court also noted that the complainant refused to accept Supreme Court notices, which weakened her credibility and showed she was not serious about pursuing justice.

Lower Courts Overlooked Errors

The Supreme Court held that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in issuing summons, and the Allahabad High Court failed to exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

“The Magistrate committed an error in passing the summoning order. The High Court too overlooked relevant aspects while rejecting the Section 482 application,” the bench observed. It reminded High Courts that they must step in to prevent misuse of law when complaints are clearly frivolous, malicious, or aimed at revenge.

Reliance on Past Precedents

The ruling referred to earlier judgments, including Mohammad Wajid v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013), and Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013). These cases highlighted the need to distinguish between consensual relationships and exploitation under false pretenses.

The bench reiterated the four-step test from Rajiv Thapar for quashing cases: credibility of material, ability to rule out allegations, irrefutability by the complainant, and whether continuing the case would abuse the judicial process.

Abuse of Judicial Time

The Court also raised concern about the misuse of judicial resources. It stressed that cases with no chance of conviction only waste precious court time and inflict undue harassment on the accused.

“Such trials waste precious court time, especially when it is clear they cannot end in conviction,” the bench said.

Finally, the Court quashed the complaint against Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, describing it as harassment and gross misuse of criminal law. The ruling reaffirmed that Promise of Marriage Is Not Rape when complaints are baseless and intended to settle personal scores.

Highlights from the case

The judgment sends a strong message that courts must differentiate between genuine grievances and vindictive complaints. It protects individuals from being dragged into false criminal proceedings and ensures that the law is not weaponized.

By clearly stating that Promise of Marriage Is Not Rape unless there is proof of deceitful intent, the Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of fairness, reasonableness, and protection against misuse of criminal law.

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr