The Supreme Court recently quashed a POCSO case against a man, reaffirming that a consensual relationship arising from a promise of marriage does not constitute rape.
“This Court has held in several decisions that promise to marriage and the subsequent physical relationship between the two with consent would not amount to rape and the reasons therein have been assigned (See: Prithivirajan v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 696, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108),” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar quashed the case against the youth, noting that the complaint was filed three years later—after the prosecutrix attained majority—and there was no forensic evidence indicating rape.
“In our considered opinion, as regarding the rape being committed by the appellant when the prosecutrix was a minor, there is absolutely no evidence, and definitely no forensic evidence with the prosecution. It is only an allegation in the FIR after more than 03 years, in order to make out a case under the POCSO Act, that such an act of rape was committed three years back when she was a minor. She also categorically states that she consented to the act as there was a promise of marriage by the appellant.”, the court observed.
As per the allegations, the prosecutrix was a minor (aged 15) when she entered into a consensual sexual relationship with the appellant on the promise of marriage. Upon attaining majority, the appellant refused to marry her, and she was allegedly humiliated by his family, prompting the FIR in 2022 against the Appellant, and his family members under Sections 417 (cheating), 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child).
Challenging the High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR, the accused approached the Supreme Court.
Overturning the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court noted that while consensual sexual intercourse with a minor is deemed rape under the POCSO Act, courts are empowered to quash such cases in the absence of supporting medical evidence.
The Court also questioned the credibility of the POCSO allegations, pointing out that the consensual relationship occurred during the prosecutrix’s minority, yet the complaint was filed only after the relationship ended, once she had attained majority.
The Court also referred to the recent judgment in Prithivirajan v. State (2025) to dismiss the prosecutrix’s allegation that the appellant had engaged in sexual relations under a false promise of marriage. It held that the relationship was consensual and there was no material to indicate that the appellant lacked intent to marry her from the beginning.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the FIR pending against the appellant was quashed.