LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Shambhu Kharwar vs The State of Uttar Pradesh

Criminal Appeal · 2022 INSC 827Decided 12 Aug 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 1231 of 2022
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · A.S. Bopanna

Background

A woman and the appellant were in a relationship from 2013, which continued even after she married someone else in 2014 and even after that marriage ended in a mutually agreed divorce in 2017. She alleged the appellant had repeatedly promised to marry her, kept having a sexual relationship with her on that basis, but ultimately got engaged to another woman in December 2017 without informing her. She filed a complaint alleging rape under Section 376 IPC on the theory that her consent was obtained through a false promise of marriage. The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the case, holding it involved disputed questions of fact unsuitable for quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal test: consent is vitiated by a "misconception of fact" only where a promise to marry was false from the very outset (made in bad faith with no real intention of honouring it, and directly linked to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual relationship) as distinct from a promise made honestly that simply was not kept later. Examining the complaint and chargesheet as they stood, the Court found the relationship had been genuinely consensual between two educated adults over several years, continuing through her marriage to someone else and after her divorce, which was inconsistent with the claim that her consent throughout had been procured by a false promise made in 2013. Since even taking the prosecution's allegations at face value, the essential ingredients of rape under Section 375/376 IPC were not made out, the High Court was wrong to say this was merely a disputed factual question unfit for quashing. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowed the Section 482 CrPC application, and quashed the FIR, chargesheet, and cognizance order.

Lesson Learnt

Not every failed promise to marry that was followed by a sexual relationship amounts to rape in law: criminal liability requires proof that the promise was false and insincere from the start and was the actual reason the person agreed to the relationship; courts can and should quash such prosecutions at the threshold when the alleged facts, even if fully true, do not add up to that offence.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case