Latest Judgement

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

Supreme Court of India·6 May 2026

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

6 May 2026

Judges

Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Manmohan

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

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.

Whether the allegations disclosed a case of rape on false promise of marriage under Section 376 IPC?
Whether a long-term consensual relationship can be converted into a criminal offence due to later refusal to marry?
Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the quashing petition on maintainability grounds due to earlier withdrawal?
Whether criminal proceedings should continue when no prima facie offence is made out from admitted facts?

The Supreme Court held that the case did not constitute rape based on false promise of marriage.
It held that the relationship was consensual and not induced by deception.
The criminal proceedings were found to be an abuse of process of law and were quashed.

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.