What happened?
Ravish and the complainant met on Facebook in 2021 and lived together for over two years as consenting adults. In November 2023, she filed an FIR accusing him of rape—alleging he had lured her into intimacy with a false promise of marriage—and under other sections for assault and criminal intimidation.
Lower court turn-down
Ravish asked the Uttarakhand High Court to quash the FIR, pointing out their long?standing relationship and a mutual settlement signed the day after the alleged incident, which expressly acknowledged their love and intent to marry. The High Court refused, and he carried the matter to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s take
A two-judge bench (Justices Karol and Misra) examined the facts and concluded:
Two adults who cohabit for years in a live?in relationship are presumed to have chosen that arrangement with full knowledge and consent.
There was no specific allegation that Ravish’s promise of marriage was a sham from the start, or that she would have refused intimacy but for that promise.
Their settlement agreement of 19 November 2023—signed after the alleged assault—undermined her claim of forced relations on 18 November.
Relying on earlier rulings (including Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana and Sonu Subhash Kumar v. State of U.P.), the Court held that a mere broken promise to marry, without proof of dishonest intent, cannot turn consensual intercourse into rape.
The outcome
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all ensuing proceedings as an abuse of process, and set aside the High Court’s order, freeing Ravish from criminal prosecution on these charges.
---
This judgment reaffirms that, in long?term live-in relationships between consenting adults, the law presumes genuine consent—unless there’s clear evidence to show consent was procured by a sham promise.
AdvoTalks : Justice Gets Easy - YouTube
AdvoTalks : Justice Gets Easy - YouTube
