Supreme Court Discharges Man in Rape Case; Can Failed Relationships Be Crimes?
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on 30 October 2026 discharged Santhosh Kumar N.P. of rape, cheating, and bigamy-related charges arising from a seven-year relationship with the complainant, holding that physical intimacy during a functioning consensual relationship "cannot be retrospectively branded as acts of rape merely because the relationship soured and no longer subsists".
A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the Kerala High Court, which had refused discharge, and held that the ingredients of Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were not made out. The Court also sounded a note of caution: genuine cases of deceit about marriage remain punishable, and rape remains a crime that is heavily underreported.
Case at a Glance
Case Title: Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State-Station House Officer, Kadirur Police, Tellicherry, Kannur District & Another
Case No.: Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 10173-10174 of 2025
Citation: 2026 INSC 1179 (marked reportable)
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan (judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna)
Date of Judgment: 30 October 2026
What Was Challenged: Common order dated 21 May 2025 of the Kerala High Court dismissing Criminal Revision Petition No. 295 of 2015 and Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1221 of 2015, which had upheld the refusal of discharge
Offences: Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in FIR No. 503 of 2011 at Kadirur Police Station, Thalassery, and Sessions Case No. 371 of 2013
Appearing: Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel, for the appellant; Mr. K. Rajeev, learned Advocate-on-Record, for respondent No. 2
The Question Behind the Headline
When a relationship ends badly, can the years of intimacy that came before it be recast as rape? The Supreme Court said no on these facts, and it said so in unusually strong words. It described a "worrying trend" of consensual relationships that have ended being "retrospectively combed with a fine tooth" to find sexual assault.
The answer to the title is therefore a qualified no. A relationship that turns sour does not by itself make earlier consent a crime. But the Court was equally clear that consent can be vitiated where a woman is genuinely kept in the dark about the true nature of her marriage. The line it drew depends on facts and evidence, not on allegations or moral presumptions.
Background
The Relationship and the Alleged Marriage
According to the judgment, the complainant, who was earlier married and divorced, became acquainted with the appellant and the acquaintance matured into a personal relationship. Her case is that he represented himself to be a bachelor and offered to marry her. In 1996 they travelled to Mysuru, where they were married at a temple, and they lived together as a couple until 2003. She says she consented to sexual relations on many occasions on the basis of her belief that the marriage was valid.
The Earlier Proceedings
In 2008, alleging neglect, she filed a petition under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking alternate accommodation and money. In those proceedings the appellant disclosed that he was already married with two children. The petition was dismissed on 31 August 2009 and the appeal against it also failed.
She then filed a private complaint under Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 4 April 2011 (a revision against that order is pending). She filed a second complaint with similar allegations, which the Magistrate referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and FIR No. 503 of 2011 was registered at Kadirur Police Station.
The Road to the Supreme Court
The appellant's petition to quash the FIR was disposed of on 19 November 2013 with a direction to the Trial Court to decide his discharge application expeditiously. On 9 January 2015, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thalassery dismissed the discharge petition, holding that a prima facie case existed, and also dismissed his request for further investigation. On 21 May 2025, the Kerala High Court dismissed his revision and miscellaneous petitions, reasoning that consent obtained under a misconception of fact amounts to rape, that six years of cohabitation did not cure the initial inducement, and that the request for further investigation was a delay tactic. On 18 July 2025, the Supreme Court issued notice and stayed further proceedings in Sessions Case No. 371 of 2013.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
For the Appellant
Mr. Basant submitted that the complainant was a mature adult who understood the nature of the relationship, that the two cohabited by consent from 1996 to 2003, and that criminal proceedings began only five years after the relationship ended. He pointed out that the earlier complaint had been dismissed and that the second was filed on the strength of suppressing it. He argued that the complainant herself had recorded in the earlier proceedings that the appellant's brother told her within nine months that the appellant was already married, yet she continued to cohabit with him, so a claim that consent was obtained by deception was baseless. He added that she could not even identify the temple where the marriage allegedly took place and that no witness proved it. The proceedings, he said, were an abuse of process aimed at exacting revenge and pressurising the appellant financially.
For Respondent No. 2
Mr. Rajeev submitted that there was no bar to a second complaint because the first was dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits, and that the second was referred for police investigation, so the case rests on the investigation and chargesheet. He contended that the relationship was not truly consensual, since the complainant relied on the appellant's reassurances that he was unmarried and that his brother was not telling the truth. He cited that the appellant signed as her "husband" during IVF treatment, a rental agreement bearing his signature for the Mysuru property, and a joint Post Office savings account. He explained the delay by saying she was deliberately isolated in Mysuru.
What the Supreme Court Held
The Court framed the only question as whether the allegations in FIR No. 503 of 2011 disclosed sufficient material to continue the proceedings or whether the appellant was liable to be discharged. It answered by applying Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the tests in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4, and Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368.
The Discharge Standard
At the stage of discharge the court conducts a limited examination of the material to see whether a prima facie case is made out. It may sift the evidence, but it cannot run a pre-trial or simply defer to the prosecution's version, and it must consider other possibilities put forward by the accused. What is being evaluated is the probability that the offence was committed, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Rape and Repeated Rape: Section 376(2)(n)
The Court held that the crucial ingredients were entirely absent and that the probability of the appellant having committed the offences was non-existent.
Consent Within a Functioning Relationship
The Court noted that the appellant did not deny the physical relationship but said it was consensual, and that the complainant did not deny that she learned of his earlier marriage within a few months of cohabiting. It found it "untenable and incredulous" that she continued to believe herself his legal wife on oral reassurances alone, and described the case as a consensual relationship "camouflaged in a marriage".
The Meaning of Repeatedly
The expression "repeatedly" in Section 376(2)(n) denotes sexual assault committed at different points of time as separate acts, usually following an initial assault and continuing under fear, pressure, captivity or continued deceit. The repeated acts here were part of the ongoing relationship and could not be artificially severed from it.
A Note of Caution for Genuine Cases
The Court stressed that rape strikes at a woman's bodily autonomy and dignity and is heavily underreported. It accepted that consent may be vitiated where a woman is genuinely kept in the dark about the true nature of her marriage, and said genuine cases must be pursued with vigour. Each case must turn on facts and evidence, not on allegations or moral presumptions.
Cheating Under Section 420
The offence requires deceit that induces delivery of property or the making, altering or destroying of a valuable security. The Court found nothing on record, "not a whisper", showing that the complainant delivered any property or created or modified any valuable security.
Sections 493, 494 and 495: Was There a Marriage at All?
Section 493 requires deceit that makes a woman not lawfully married to the man believe she is, and cohabit on that pretext. The Court held that continued cohabitation after learning of the earlier marriage and two children ruled that out. It added that the temple ceremony, the priest's bare statement, the IVF signatures and the joint bank account did not prima facie establish a valid Hindu marriage, so Sections 494 and 495, which depend on a void second marriage, were not made out either.
Key Lines From the Judgment
"The mere factum of the relationship having turned sour and acrimonious cannot on its own convert earlier incidences of consent to sexual acts into offences of rape."
"Rape, being a heinous offence, must be reserved for situations where there is real sexual violence, coercion, or manipulation of consent."
"Criminal law cannot be used as munitions to settle personal scores, exact revenge or coerce an individual to act in any particular way."
"However, the application of this principle must be guided by facts and evidence in each case, and not by mere allegations or moral presumptions."
What This Means Going Forward
Courts must read the whole relationship. The Court said courts must view the relationship holistically rather than from the perspective of its end.
Knowledge defeats the deceit theory. Where the complainant learned of the earlier marriage early and chose to continue, a claim that consent rested on a belief in a valid marriage is hard to sustain at the discharge stage.
Discharge is a real remedy. The ruling restates that a Section 227 application is a serious opportunity to challenge a prosecution that fails on its own allegations, without a trial.
Genuine deceit cases are protected. The Court expressly preserved the protective mantle of Section 376 and Sections 493, 494 and 495 for women who are truly wronged.
Draft the discharge application around the ingredients. Practitioners should map each alleged fact against the elements of every section charged, as the Court did.
Master Criminal Law Drafting and Litigation With Into Legal World
Discharge applications, quashing petitions and challenges to charge are central to a criminal practice. If you want to draft them confidently and argue them in court, explore the Certificate Course in Criminal Law Drafting and Litigation by Into Legal World.
Build Your Legal Career With the Advanced Legal Drafting Certificate Course
Strong drafting is what separates good lawyers from great ones. Learn to draft pleadings, applications, notices and contracts that stand up in court with the Advanced Legal Drafting Certificate Course by Into Legal World, built for law students and practising lawyers who want to grow their careers.
Get Daily Judgment Updates
Follow the Into Legal World WhatsApp Channel for judgment analysis, legal updates and career opportunities for law students and lawyers.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court say a failed relationship can never amount to rape?
No. The Court held that a consensual relationship that turns sour cannot be retrospectively branded as rape, but it expressly preserved cases where consent is vitiated because a woman was genuinely kept in the dark about the true nature of her marriage.
Why was the accused discharged?
Applying Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court found that the ingredients of Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code were not made out, because the complainant learned of the earlier marriage within months and continued the relationship voluntarily, and there was no property or valuable security involved.
What does repeatedly mean in Section 376(2)(n)?
The Court said it denotes a series of separate acts of sexual assault at different points of time, usually under fear, pressure, captivity or continued deceit, and not the continuation of a single transaction or the ordinary course of a consensual relationship.
What is the test for discharge under Section 227?
The court examines the material to see whether a prima facie case is made out, meaning whether commission of the offence is probable. It may sift evidence but cannot conduct a pre-trial, and if two views are possible and one gives rise only to suspicion, the accused may be discharged.
What happens to the pending trial?
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court, discharged the appellant of all offences alleged against him, and allowed the appeals, so the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 371 of 2013 do not continue.
Keywords
Consensual relationship rape case, Section 376(2)(n) IPC, repeated rape meaning, discharge under Section 227 CrPC, Prafulla Kumar Samal, Sajjan Kumar, Sections 493 494 495 IPC, false promise of marriage, deceit and consent, abuse of criminal law, failed relationship criminal case, Santhosh Kumar N.P., 2026 INSC 1179, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice R. Mahadevan.
Case Title: Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State-Station House Officer, Kadirur Police, Tellicherry, Kannur District & Another
Case No.: Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 10173-10174 of 2025
Citation: 2026 INSC 1179
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
Comments