In Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [2026 INSC 124], the Supreme Court cautioned against the growing trend of criminalizing failed consensual relationships. The Court emphasized that while sexual exploitation under a false pretext is a crime, not every broken promise of marriage amounts to rape.
Distinction Between False Promise and Breach of Promise
The Court observed that litigation arising from consensual relationships that turn “acrimonious” (bitter) due to disagreements or a future change of mind must be clearly separated from cases of genuine deception.
Two Essential Ingredients for Prosecution
For an act to be prosecuted as rape under the pretext of a false promise (historically under Section 376 IPC, and now addressed under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), two conditions must be met:
- Initial Deceit: The accused must have made the promise of marriage solely to obtain sexual consent, with absolutely no intention of fulfilling that promise from the very beginning.
- Direct Causation: The false promise must have been the immediate reason for the woman giving her consent. In other words, had there been no promise, there would have been no consent.
Section 69 of the BNS specifically deals with sexual intercourse by deceitful means.
When Marriage is Legally Impossible
In this 2026 case, the Court quashed an FIR where the complainant was a married woman (an advocate) whose divorce was not yet final.
The Court held:
- A promise of marriage to a person who is not legally eligible to marry (due to a subsisting marriage) is unenforceable.
- Since both parties were aware of the legal bar to marriage, the claim that consent was obtained through a “misconception” of a future marriage is legally unsustainable.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the law must protect women from sexual fraud, but it must not be used as a tool for revenge when a voluntary relationship fails. Consensual relationships gone sour do not deserve prosecution for rape.
