While quashing a rape case, the Top Court recently observed that there is a difference between a false promise of marriage and a breach of the promise made in good faith but was not subsequently fulfilled.

At the outset, the court noted that the parties were in a consensual relationship from 2009-2011 and even though the victim submitted that the relationship was started on a promise to marry, the complaint was only lodged after three years.

It is pertinent to note that the Bombay High Court had dismissed the accused’s petition after observing that rape is an offence against society.

As per the Apex Court, the registration of FIR, in this case, is an abuse of the criminal process.

The court opined that allowing further proceeding in the case would amount to harassment as the parties chose to get into a physical relationship for considerable and for some reason the relationship did not work out, and the same could have happened even after marriage.

While referring to Pramod Suryabhan Pawar versus the State of Maharashtra, the court observed that there is a difference between a false promise of marriage given by the maker and a breach of promise which is made in good faith but is not fulfilled.

Therefore, the Bench allowed the petition and quashed the rape case filed against the petitioner-accused.