Shaileshbhai Govindbhai Makwana v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2026

The complainant alleged that the accused induced her into a sexual relationship on a false promise of marriage.

The complainant was previously married and had been living separately since 2012.

Before finalisation of her divorce, she created a matrimonial profile seeking remarriage.

The accused contacted her through the platform in 2017 and they entered into a relationship.

The complainant alleged that on 17.10.2017, the accused had sexual intercourse with her against her will.

The parties thereafter continued a consensual physical and cohabiting relationship from 2017 to 2020, including travel and stay in hotels.

The complainant later alleged that the accused refused to marry her in 2021 and lodged an FIR.

The accused sought quashing of proceedings, which was refused by the High Court.

The Supreme Court held that the relationship between the parties was consensual and long-standing, spanning from 2017 to 2020.

It observed that both parties were aware that they were already married to other spouses at the inception of the relationship.

The Court held that there was no evidence of a false promise of marriage inducing sexual relations.

It found that the alleged incident of force was not contemporaneously reported and surfaced after several years of continued interaction.

The Court relied on the principle that a distinction must be made between a false promise made without intent and a subsequent breach of promise due to changed circumstances.

It held that continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law.

The Court also held that the High Court erred in rejecting the petition on maintainability grounds since the earlier petition was withdrawn without adjudication on merits.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings.

The judgment reinforces the legal distinction between false promise of marriage and breach of promise arising from later circumstances.

It clarifies that consensual long-term relationships cannot be retrospectively criminalised due to subsequent disputes.

The Court emphasized that criminal law under Section 376 IPC cannot be misused for failed relationships.

It strengthened the principle that prima facie absence of deception at inception negates rape liability in such cases.

The judgment also protects accused persons from prolonged criminal trials where foundational ingredients are missing.

It further clarifies that procedural maintainability objections cannot override substantive justice when no offence is made out.

The Supreme Court held that not every failed relationship involving promise of marriage amounts to rape.

It reiterated that criminal law cannot be used to convert consensual relationships into offences due to later disputes.

The Court ultimately quashed the proceedings to prevent misuse of criminal process.