Case:- PRADEEP KUMAR KESARWANI VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Citation:- SLP (Crl). 11642/2019
Date:- 02.09.2025
Supreme Court Bench:- JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA & JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently clarified the difference between consensual sex following a promise to marry which was broken later and intercourse based on a false promise made with mala fide intent from the start.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that consensual sex in a genuine relationship cannot be treated as rape just because the marriage did not happen.
- The key difference lies in intent: if the man never intended to marry from the beginning and used a false promise only for sex, it amounts to cheating/deception. But if the relationship was genuine and later collapsed, it is not rape, even if marriage plans failed.
- In this case, the relationship lasted from 2010 to 2014, involved meetings with the woman’s family, and even police-mediated assurances of marriage, showing it was serious.
- The Hon’ble Court noted that a breach of promise is not the same as a false promise. The former may be a civil or moral wrong, but not a criminal offence.
- Since there was no proof of mala fide intent from the start, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the summons issued against the man.
