It Will Be Folly To Treat Every Breach Of Promise To Marry As Rape- SC Upholds Discharge Order Of Tr

Supreme Court Clears Appellant of Rape Charges, Emphasizes Consent and Misuse of Legal Process

 

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed charges of rape and criminal intimidation against Jaspal Singh Kaural, overturning a Delhi High Court order that had reinstated them. The verdict was delivered on April 7, 2025, by a bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, in Jaspal Singh Kaural vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

 

Background

 

The case stemmed from FIR No. 281/2021, filed by the complainant (Respondent No. 2) at Sagarpur Police Station. She alleged that the appellant had lured her into a physical relationship since 2016 on the pretext of marriage and promised to take care of her children. Claiming she divorced her husband based on his assurances, she later accused him of refusing to marry her and threatening her children.

 

Jaspal Singh was booked under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC. However, the Sessions Court had discharged him under Section 227 CrPC in June 2023, finding no prima facie evidence to proceed. This was reversed by the Delhi High Court in January 2024, prompting the present appeal.

 

Supreme Court’s Observations

 

The apex court emphasized that a clear distinction must be made between a false promise of marriage and a mere breach of promise. Citing its earlier judgment in Naim Ahmed v. State (2023), the Court cautioned against misusing Section 376 IPC in consensual relationships that later turn sour.

 

Key findings included:

 

The relationship between the complainant and appellant was consensual and spanned several years.

 

There was no evidence of coercion or dishonest inducement.

 

Acts such as purchasing a mangalsutra with the appellant’s initials suggested genuine intent, not deceit.

 

The complainant was in an ongoing marriage when the relationship began, indicating full awareness and independent choice.

 

 

Additionally, the Court found no supporting material for the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.

 

Final Verdict

 

The Supreme Court restored the Sessions Court’s discharge order, noting that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by delving into factual issues at the charge-framing stage. It held that the material on record failed to establish the essential ingredients of rape or intimidation.

 

In allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and terminated all criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 281/2021.

 

This judgment reinforces the importance of judicial restraint at the preliminary stage and safeguards individuals from being dragged into unwarranted trials based on failed personal relationships.


AdvoTalks : Justice Gets Easy - YouTube