ABC v. XYZ
Background
This was a transfer petition seeking to move a cheque-bounce case (Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act) from a court in Kolkata to a court in Delhi. During the case, the parties went to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and reached a full settlement, under which Rs. 25 lakh was paid by demand draft. However, the underlying dispute also involved an FIR alleging rape and criminal intimidation (Sections 376 and 506 IPC), which by law cannot simply be "settled" between the parties like a money dispute.
Decision Breakdown
The Court accepted the settlement and disposed of the money-related proceedings (the cheque-bounce case and related civil/criminal complaints) as withdrawn, since the payment had genuinely been made. On the separate rape allegation, the Court examined the FIR itself and found that the complaint described a long-running consensual relationship between two adults where the relationship ended without a promised marriage taking place, which, per settled Supreme Court precedent, does not amount to the offence of rape by false promise of marriage. It therefore quashed the FIR and all related proceedings on that ground as well, and, because the matter touched on an allegation under Section 376 IPC, the Court took the unusual step of masking the parties' real names in its published order, referring to them only as "ABC" and "XYZ" to protect privacy, even though the parties themselves had not sought anonymity.
Lesson Learnt
A broken promise to marry, on its own, does not automatically turn a consensual adult relationship into the criminal offence of rape. Courts require clear proof that consent was obtained specifically through a knowingly false promise; and courts may anonymize a judgment's parties even without a request when a sensitive allegation like this is involved.