The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR registered against an advocate accused of rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, holding that the case stemmed from a long-term consensual relationship. The Court emphasised that converting every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts indelible stigma and grave injustice. The misuse of the criminal justice machinery in this manner is a matter of profound concern, warranting condemnation, the court added.

The case stemmed from a complaint by a married woman living separately from her husband, who came into contact with the appellant, an advocate, during her maintenance proceedings. Their interactions grew into a long-term intimate relationship from 2022 to 2024. During this period, the complainant underwent multiple abortions with the appellant’s knowledge. However, FIR was lodged only on 31 August 2024, nearly three months after their last meeting under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 507 IPC.

The appellant approached the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that it was triggered only when he refused the complainant’s demand for ₹1,50,000. The Bombay High Court refused to quash the case, holding that a chargesheet was already filed, the nature of consent required a full trial, and the relationship bore fiduciary elements warranting judicial scrutiny.

A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan found that the FIR, statements on record, and admitted conduct of the parties clearly indicated a prolonged intimate relationship between the couple without any ‘coercion, fraud or misrepresentation’. The Court observed that the complainant, an educated adult woman whose marriage was still subsisting, met the appellant voluntarily on multiple occasions, maintained physical relations over a prolonged period, and did not lodge any complaint during the subsistence of the relationship.

Referring to Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 11 SCC 398, the Court noted that a woman may engage in a physical relationship for reasons independent of a promise of marriage, such as personal affection or mutual intimacy, and that where a relationship is knowingly maintained over a prolonged period, it cannot automatically be inferred that consent was premised solely on an assurance to marry. Applying this principle, the Court held that the present case did not involve the appellant luring the complainant for physical gratification and disappearing thereafter; rather, the parties shared a three-year emotionally close relationship, during which intimacy was part of a functioning personal bond.

Such intimacy, the Court concluded, cannot be criminalised after a relationship fails and consensual intimacy cannot retroactively be labelled as rape. However, the Court also emphasised that the law must remain sensitive to genuine cases where consent is vitiated by deceit, while ensuring that such protection is not misused to criminalise consensual relationships that later sour.

Finding that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process, the Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR under Section 528 BNSS and quashed both the FIR and the chargesheet dated October 25, 2025.

Appearances

Appellant: Ms. Sneha Sanjay Botwe, AOR Mr. Bharat S. Doifode, Adv. Mr. Siddharth S. Chapalgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Akash Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Ashraf Patel, Adv.

Respondent: Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR