Rape On False Marriage Promise

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that consensual sex on a genuine promise of marriage that later fails cannot be treated as rape, unless the promise was false and made with mala fide intent from the start. It quashed rape proceedings against an accused, holding that a mere breach of promise does not amount to deception. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025) ? 

• A scheduled caste female student filed a private complaint in August 2014 against Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, alleging criminal acts that purportedly occurred in 2010.  
• The complainant alleged that Kesarwani forcibly raped her, tearing her clothes despite her resistance and objections. She claimed he threatened to upload nude photographs online if she approached police, having allegedly recorded a video during the assault. 
• Following the initial incident, Kesarwani allegedly promised to marry the complainant and requested her to accept him as her husband.  
• The complainant stated she felt trapped with no alternative and began cohabiting with him as his wife.  
• During their cohabitation period, she alleged continued sexual assault, including unnatural intercourse under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.  
• In 2011, when the complainant became pregnant, she requested formal marriage but Kesarwani allegedly refused and forced her to undergo abortion through medicines. 
• Kesarwani obtained employment with N.J. Wealth Advisor Company in Faridabad during 2011. When her parents searched for matrimonial matches, she disclosed the situation and they consented to marriage with Kesarwani.  
• The complainant visited Kesarwani's Faridabad office on 21st July 2010 to discuss marriage formalization. Kesarwani allegedly pre-arranged his parents and associates to be present during this meeting. 
• These individuals allegedly subjected her to caste-based discrimination, making derogatory remarks about her scheduled caste status. They declared inter-community marriage impossible and used filthy language with casteist slurs.  
• The complainant contacted Faridabad police for assistance during the confrontation. Police transported both parties to the station where officers stated refusal to marry would constitute a criminal offence. 
• Under police pressure, Kesarwani initially agreed to marriage but subsequently withdrew consent. The complainant approached multiple authorities through registered letters in July 2014 but no action was taken.  
• She filed a private complaint seeking prosecution under multiple IPC sections including 323 (hurt), 504 (insult), 376 (rape), 452 (trespass), 377 (unnatural offences), and 120B (conspiracy). Additional charges under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act were included. The four-year delay between alleged incidents and complaint filing became a crucial credibility issue. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that summoning persons on frivolous complaints tarnishes reputation and requires greater judicial scrutiny. Courts must examine cases with closer scrutiny, looking beyond mere averments to understand underlying circumstances. A clear distinction exists between rape and consensual intercourse involving marriage promises. Courts must carefully examine whether the accused genuinely intended marriage or harboured mala fide motives from inception. 
• Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent constitutes an act of reason with deliberation, where the mind weighs good and evil aspects. Courts must distinguish between mere breach of promise and fulfilment of false promise made with deceptive intent. An accused can be convicted for rape only when the court concludes intention was mala fide with clandestine motives. 
• There must be adequate evidence showing the accused had no intention of honouring the marriage promise from the initial stage. Circumstances may arise where a person with genuine intentions becomes unable to marry due to unavoidable circumstances. The Court established a four-step test requiring that material must be sound and indubitable, rule out charges, remain unrefuted, and show trial would abuse process. 
• The complainant's refusal to accept Supreme Court notice indicated lack of seriousness from the beginning. The complaint failed to inspire confidence due to absence of material particulars and vague allegations. The unexplained four-year delay in filing complaint undermined credibility significantly. Lack of specific dates, places of incidents, and absence of independent corroborating evidence weakened the case. 
• Not only was the appellant implicated but his parents were unnecessarily dragged into proceedings with unsubstantiated offences. Continuation of criminal proceedings would constitute gross abuse of legal process. The High Court should have exercised inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash such proceedings. Courts owe a duty to examine complaints with care when accused claim proceedings are frivolous or vexatious. Complainants with ulterior motives often ensure complaints are well-drafted to disclose necessary ingredients of alleged offences. 

What is Section 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya  Sanhita,2024 (BNS) ? 

• Section 69 criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or false promises of marriage made without genuine intention to fulfill such promises. 
• This provision applies when sexual intercourse does not constitute rape but involves deception or fraudulent marriage promises. 
• The section provides punishment of imprisonment up to ten years along with liability for fine. 
• Section 69 specifically targets cases where consent is obtained through deliberate deception rather than force or coercion. 
• The provision recognizes that consent obtained through fraud or false promises vitiate the apparent voluntary nature of sexual intercourse. 
• This section fills a legal gap between consensual sexual intercourse and rape by addressing exploitative conduct involving deceptive practices. 
• The offense under Section 69 requires proving that the accused never intended to fulfill the marriage promise from the initial stage. 

What are the Essential Elements of Section 69 ? 

• The first essential element requires proof of sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant.  
• The second element mandates that such sexual intercourse was obtained through deceitful means or false promise of marriage.  
• The third element requires establishing that the accused had no genuine intention of fulfilling the marriage promise from the beginning.  
• The fourth element specifies that the sexual intercourse must not constitute the offence of rape under existing statutory provisions. 
• The fifth element demands demonstrating that the complainant's consent was obtained specifically due to deceitful means or false marriage promises.  
• The statutory explanation clarifies that deceitful means includes inducement through false promises of employment, promotion, or marriage by concealing true identity.  
• The prosecution must establish that the accused harboured mala fide intentions and clandestine motives from the inception of the relationship. 
• The essential element of fraudulent intent distinguishes this offence from mere breach of promise or inability to marry due to unforeseen circumstances. The temporal aspect requires proving that deception existed at the time of sexual intercourse rather than merely subsequent change of mind.  
• The causation element establishes that the complainant would not have consented to sexual intercourse without the false promise or deceptive representation. The section requires demonstrating that the accused deliberately employed deceptive tactics to obtain sexual favours under the guise of future marriage.