Whether a long-term consensual relationship based on an alleged false promise of marriage constitutes rape under Section 376 IPC.

Facts of the Case:
The appellant, Mahesh Damu Khare, approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of his plea to quash an FIR registered against him under Sections 376, 420, 504, and 506 of the IPC. The complainant alleged that the appellant engaged in a decade-long sexual relationship with her based on a false promise of marriage. The appellant contended that their relationship was consensual and that the allegations were retaliatory after he ceased providing financial support.

Contentions of the Appellant:

1. The relationship was consensual and continued for over a decade without protest or insistence on marriage.
2. The complainant’s allegations surfaced only after he refused further financial assistance.
3. The High Court erred in dismissing his plea by overlooking the consensual nature of the relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape or cheating.
4. The complaint was malicious and intended to harass him.

Contentions of the Respondent:

1. The State contended that whether the relationship was consensual or based on a false promise of marriage is a matter of fact to be determined during the investigation and trial.
2. The High Court was correct in refusing to quash the FIR since Section 376 IPC involves an offence against society.

Issues:

1. Whether a long-term consensual relationship based on an alleged false promise of marriage constitutes rape under Section 376 IPC.
2. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings based on the FIR amounts to abuse of the judicial process.
3. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s plea to quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC.

Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court:

1. A consensual relationship maintained over a prolonged period with no immediate protest or insistence on marriage suggests mutual consent rather than coercion or deceit.
2. The absence of immediate allegations or evidence of coercion undermines the complainant’s claim of consent under misconception of fact.
3. The complainant’s maturity and her awareness of the appellant’s marital status further diminish the claim of being misled.
4. Allowing criminal proceedings based on the FIR would constitute an abuse of the judicial process.

Principle of the Case:
A consensual long-term relationship does not constitute rape solely on the basis of an unfulfilled promise of marriage unless it is shown that the promise was false from the inception and intended to deceive the complainant into the relationship.

Final Order:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the FIR against the appellant. The Court clarified that this order does not bar the complainant from seeking other legal remedies.

Impact on Public Law and Order:
The judgment reinforces the distinction between consensual relationships and coercive or deceitful conduct. It emphasizes the need to scrutinize allegations of false promises to avoid misuse of criminal law in personal disputes. This will help safeguard judicial resources while ensuring genuine cases of exploitation are addressed.

Case Citation:
Supreme Court of India, Mahesh Damu Khare vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4326 of 2018), Judgment dated November 26, 2024.