RAVISH SINGH RANAversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

          [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2722 : 2025 INSC 635

                   Ravish Singh Rana
                             v.
               State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
             (Criminal Appeal No. 2438 of 2025)
                          28 April 2025
          [Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ.]


                    Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition filed by the
appellant for quashing of FIR and the consequential proceedings.

                           Headnotes†
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.528 – Quashing –
Parties were in a live-in relationship for over two years, living
in a rented accommodation – Second respondent filed FIR
against the appellant u/ss.376, 323, 504, 506, IPC alleging that
he established physical relationship with her many times with a
promise to marry however, later refused to marry – High Court
dismissed the petition filed by the appellant for quashing of
FIR – Interference with:
Held: If two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple
for more than a couple of years and cohabit with each other,
a presumption arises that they voluntarily chose that kind of a
relationship fully aware of its consequences – The relationship
between the parties was for over two years – They not only admit
of having physical relations with each other but also of living
together in a rented accommodation as a live-in couple – FIR does
not allege that physical relationship was established only because
there was a promise of marriage – Besides, physical relationship
continued for over two years without any complaint – The long-
drawn relationship of the parties including the circumstance of
their living together and cohabiting with each other, that too, in
a separate rented accommodation, gives rise to a presumption
that their relationship was based on a valid consent – Therefore,
the allegation that such relationship was entered because there
was a promise of marriage is rejected – Moreover, the settlement
agreement executed between the parties stating that they love each
other shows that they were in love – Thus, the appellant cannot
be subjected to prosecution for the offence of rape on the ground
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                           2723

            Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.


     of refusal to marry – Impugned judgment set aside – FIR and the
     consequential proceedings quashed. [Paras 11, 14, 16, 17, 18]
     Live-in relationships – Long-drawn relationships, proliferation
     of – Duty of Courts – Stated. [Para 15]

                             Case Law Cited
     Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharastra and Another
     [2019] 11 SCR 423 : (2019) 9 SCC 608; Deepak Gulati v. State of
     Haryana [2013] 6 SCR 544 : (2013) 7 SCC 675; Sonu @ Subash
     Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another [2021] 2 SCR 137 :
     (2021) 18 SCC 517 – relied on.

                                List of Acts
     Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Penal Code, 1860;
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                             List of Keywords
     Quashing; Live-in-relationships; Live-in couple; Long-drawn
     relationship; Living together; Rented accommodation; Implied
     consent; Valid consent; Cohabit; Voluntary physical relationship;
     Physical relationship established with a promise to marry; False
     promise of marriage; Mere breach of a promise not a false promise;
     Refusal to marry; Rape; Forcibly established physical relationship;
     Settlement agreement; FIR quashed.

                            Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     2438 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2024 of the High Court
     of Uttarakhand at Nainital in CRMA No. 922 of 2024

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Gautam Barnwal, Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Nishant Gill, Saksham
     Kumar, Aakash, Mukesh Kumar.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ajay Bahuguna, Siddhant Yadav, Garvesh
     Kabra, Ms. Pallavi Kumari.
2724                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Order
1.    Leave granted.
2.    This appeal impugns judgment and order of the High Court of
      Uttarakhand1, dated 11.12.2024, by which Criminal Misc. Application
      No. 922 of 2024 filed by the appellant for quashing FIR No. 482 of
      2023 and proceedings arising therefrom, including the cognizance
      order dated 13.02.2024, has been dismissed.
3.    Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are as follows:
      (i)    The second respondent lodged a First Information Report2
             at Police Station3 Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar on
             23.11.2023 against the appellant, inter-alia, alleging that on
             06.02.2021, the informant got introduced to the appellant through
             Facebook; after introduction, they began a live-in relationship;
             during this period the appellant rented a room at Khatima and
             established physical relationship many times with a promise
             to marry the informant; physical relationship continued though
             at times informant was abused and beaten; later, when the
             informant insisted on marriage, the appellant refused to marry
             and instead threatened the informant; and forcibly established
             physical relationship on 18.11.2023.
      (ii)   The aforesaid FIR was registered under Sections 376, 323,
             504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604
      (iii) To quash the aforesaid FIR and the consequential proceedings,
            the appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No.922 of 2024
            before the High Court by invoking its powers under Section 528
            of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20235 (equivalent
            to section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19736).



1    High Court
2    FIR
3    PS
4    IPC
5    BNSS
6    CrPC
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         2725

            Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.


     (iv) In the aforesaid application, the appellant, inter alia, stated
          that admittedly both parties were adults; they lived together
          under one roof for over two years; during this period, they
          had physical relationship voluntarily; and, later, they codified
          an agreement/settlement on 19.11.2023. Thus, the allegations
          are nothing but mala fide, concocted with a view to blackmail
          the appellant and his family. Moreover, those allegations have
          no support from any injury/ medical report. And, in any case,
          an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is not made out.
     (v)   The High Court by the impugned order dismissed the petition
           on the ground that the allegations made in the FIR disclose
           commission of a cognizable offence and, therefore, the same
           cannot be quashed.
     (vi) Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant is in
          appeal before us.
4.   We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Vanshaja
     Shukla for the respondents.

     Submissions on behalf of appellant
5.   The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that
     admittedly the parties have executed a settlement deed on 19.11.2023,
     which reads as under:
           “The agreement has been made today 19.11.2023 between
           the first party (name and address of the second respondent)
           and the second party (name and address of the appellant).
           On the advice of the respected persons with the condition
           that both are living together since 12th August so we must
           conduct Mangbhari and live like husband and wife in the
           room and we would hand over our papers today to the
           Advocate to register their marriage and they would get the
           registration done going to the Court. If the second party
           violates the agreement, the legal action can be taken
           against us. We both the parties know each other since
           February, 2021. We love each other.”
6.   Based on the aforesaid settlement, the learned counsel for the
     appellant contended that the allegation that appellant forcibly
     established physical relationship with the informant on 18.11.2023
2726                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


      is palpably false. Had it been so, the settlement agreement, which
      was entered on 19.11.2023, would not have stated that parties love
      each other. This settlement clearly establishes that till 19.11.2023
      there was no untoward incident, and the parties were in love with
      each other.
7.    It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the High Court overlooked
      this settlement agreement, as a result grave injustice has been
      caused to the appellant.

      Submissions on behalf of respondents
8.    Per contra, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, who appeared for the respondents,
      submitted that the agreement clearly stated that if marriage is not
      formalized then legal action will be taken. In these circumstances, since
      admittedly the marriage has not been registered and formalized, legal
      action has rightly been taken against the appellant. Besides that, the
      FIR alleges that physical relationship was established under a promise
      of marriage and as marriage has not taken place, it was proved that
      there was a false promise of marriage, therefore consent for physical
      relationship stood vitiated. Hence, even an offence of rape is made
      out. In this light, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla cited a decision of this Court
      in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharastra and Another7.
9.    We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the
      materials on record.

      Discussion/ Analysis
10. An overview of the facts makes it clear that relationship between
    the appellant and the second respondent (the informant) had been
    there since 2021. This relationship was not merely of knowing each
    other but of living together as a couple under one roof in a rented
    accommodation. The FIR does not allege that physical relationship
    was established only because there was a promise of marriage.
    Besides, physical relationship continued for over two years without
    a complaint in between. In such circumstances, a presumption would
    arise of there being a valid consent for initiating and maintaining the
    physical relationship that spanned over two years.



7    (2019) 9 SCC 608
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                          2727

             Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.


11. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), this Court held that where the
    promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker, at the time
    of making the promise, itself was not to abide by it, but to deceive
    the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there
    is a “misconception of fact” that vitiates the woman’s “consent”.
    However, a mere breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false
    promise. Therefore, to establish a false promise, it would have to
    be demonstrated that the maker of the promise had no intention of
    upholding his word at the time of making the promise.
12. In Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana8, this Court observed:
            “21. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or
            misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent
            is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the
            mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on
            each side. There is a clear distinction between rape and
            consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must
            very carefully examine whether the accused had actually
            wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and
            had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy
            his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating
            or deception. There is a distinction between the mere
            breach of a promise and not fulfilling a promise. Thus,
            the court must examine whether there was made, at an
            early stage, a false promise of marriage by the accused;
            and whether the consent involved was given after fully
            understanding the nature and consequences of sexual
            indulgence. There may be a case where the prosecutor
            agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love
            and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of
            misrepresentation made to her by the accused, or where
            an accused on account of circumstances which he could
            not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was
            unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do
            so. Such cases must be treated differently. An accused
            can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches to a
            conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide,
            and that he had clandestine motives.”


8   (2013) 7 SCC 675
2728                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


13. In Sonu @ Subash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another9
    this Court quashed the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom
    upon noticing that (1) relationship between appellant and the second
    respondent was of consensual nature; (2) parties were in relationship
    for a period of one-and-a-half years; and (3) subsequently, appellant
    had expressed disinclination to marry the second respondent which
    led to registration of FIR.
14. In the instant case also, we find that the relationship between the
    appellant and the second respondent (the informant) was spread
    over two years. Further, they not only admit of having physical
    relations with each other but also of living together in a rented
    accommodation as a live-in couple. In our view, if two able-minded
    adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple
    of years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise
    that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of
    its consequences. Therefore, the allegation that such relationship
    was entered because there was a promise of marriage is in the
    circumstances unworthy of acceptance, particularly, when there is
    no allegation that such physical relationship would not have been
    established had there been no promise to marry.
15. Moreover, in a long drawn live-in relationship, occasions may arise
    where parties in that relationship express their desire or wish to
    formalize the same by a seal of marriage, but that expression of
    desire, or wish, by itself would not be indicative of relationship being
    a consequence of that expression of desire or wish. A decade or two
    earlier, live-in relationships might not have been common. But now
    more and more women are financially independent and have the
    capacity to take conscious decision of charting their life on their own
    terms. This financial freedom, inter alia, has led to proliferation of such
    live-in relationships. Therefore, when a matter of this nature comes to
    a court, it must not adopt a pedantic approach rather the Court may,
    based on the length of such relationship and conduct of the parties,
    presume implied consent of the parties to be in such a relationship
    regardless of their desire or a wish to convert it into a marital bond.
16. In that view of the matter, in our considered view, the long-drawn
    relationship of the appellant and the second respondent including the


9   (2021) 18 SCC 517
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                     2729

              Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.


     circumstance of their living together and cohabiting with each other,
     that too, in a separate rented accommodation, would give rise to a
     presumption that their relationship was based on a valid consent.
17. The settlement agreement, dated 19.11.2023, which is not disputed
    by the second respondent, points out that the parties had been in
    love. In such circumstances, we are of the view that on ground of
    refusal to marry, the appellant cannot be subjected to prosecution
    for the offence of rape. The other allegations of assault and abuse
    have not been supported by any material particulars. Even the
    alleged sexual assault on 18.11.2023 is negated by the recital in
    the settlement agreement that parties love each other.
18. For all the reasons above, in our view, the impugned first information
    report and the consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof are
    nothing but abuse of the process of the court and the same deserves
    to be quashed. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and
    order of the High Court is set aside. The impugned first information
    report and the consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.
19. The pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey