It is definitely most heartening to note that while taking the most pragmatic step, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Samadhan vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr in Criminal Appeal No. 5001 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6906 of 2025) and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 1351 that was pronounced just recently on November 24, 2025 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction while quashing a rape case that had been filed against a lawyer from Aurangabad has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that a break-up of consensual relationship between two adults cannot be treated as a criminal offence to invoke rape charges against the man. It is definitely worth paying attention that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice BV Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr Justice R Mahadevan underscored that a relationship cannot be retrospectively converted into rape merely because it ended in disagreement or disappointment, and that allegations of rape on false promise to marry must be supported by clear evidence. To put it differently, the Bench very clearly mandated and propounded that:
A mere break-up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings… What was a consensual relationship at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship.” There can be certainly just no denying or disputing it!

It is high time and rampant misuse of rape laws must be promptly checked. Consensual sex under no circumstances should ever be termed as rape. Why should a women agree to have sex with men without marriage?

The million dollar question is: Why women is given blank cheque and men punished for rape even though women herself voluntarily consents to the same? Earlier also this year, we had seen that Apex Court had recommended that consensual sex should be decriminalized because there is a huge misuse of rape laws by women. It is high time that Centre takes the much needed initiative in this regard and amend the law accordingly! It definitely brooks no more delay any longer now! No denying or disputing it!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Ms Justice BV Nagarathna for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of herself and Hon’ble Mr Justice R Mahadevan sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that:
Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad in Criminal Application No. 601 of 2025 dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking quashing of FIR No. 294 of 2024, registered with City Chowk Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar City on 31.08.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”), the appellant is before this Court.”

Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 3 that:
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.1-State and learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. Radhika Gautham, for respondent No.2 as the latter has not responded to the notice issued and served on her.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 that:
Briefly stated the facts of this case as per the prosecution are that respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint with City Chowk Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar City, stating that she was married to a person ABC in the year 2019 and had a minor daughter out of the said wedlock. However, due to matrimonial discord with her husband and in-laws, she had been residing separately since May 2020 and was living with her parents at Rajangaon, Taluka Paithan, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.”

As we see, the Bench then lays bare in para 5 revealing that:
In July 2020, respondent No.2 had filed a complaint against her husband at the Women’s Grievance Redressal Centre, Office of Superintendent of Police, Chatrapati Sambhajinagar. However, owing to the failure of reconciliation between them, respondent No.2 initiated proceedings against her husband seeking alimony/maintenance from him.”

While shedding more light on the facts of the case, the Bench specifies in para 6 stating that:
It is in connection with the said proceedings that respondent No.2, on 27.01.2022, was introduced to the appellant, who is a practising advocate in the courts of Aurangabad. Later, appellant took respondent No.2’s contact number and the two regularly kept in touch on WhatsApp and through phone calls. Over a period of time, the appellant and respondent No.2 developed a close relationship. It was then that the appellant proposed to meet respondent No.2 in person at Vivekananda Garden in TV Centre. During the course of their meeting, the appellant expressed his desire to marry respondent No.2. However, owing to her troubled marital past, respondent No.2 declined the proposal. Despite her reluctance, the appellant continued to insist on marriage at each subsequent meeting.”

Further, the Bench discloses in para 7 that:
On 12.03.2022, the appellant called respondent No.2 to Hotel Citizen, near Mill Corner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, where he once again expressed his desire to marry her and assured her that he would marry her despite her concern that his mother might not approve of the alliance. Based on such assurance, the appellant established physical relations with her.”

Furthermore, the Bench unravels in para 8 narrating that:
Subsequently, in September 2022, the complainant discovered that she was pregnant with the appellant’s child. However, with the consent of the appellant, she aborted the child. Thereafter, when respondent No.2 decided to part ways with the appellant, he continued to assure her of marriage and engaged in further sexual relations with her, as a result of which she got pregnant again in July 2023 and later in May 2024. Both the pregnancies were terminated.”

Still more, the Bench then mentions in para 9 that:
On 20.05.2024, the appellant once again called respondent No.2 to Hotel Citizen, where he engaged in physical acts with her. Later, when respondent No.2 insisted on marriage, the appellant flatly refused to marry her and further threatened to kill her if she disclosed the matter to anybody.”

Do note, the Bench notes in para 10 that:
Based on the aforesaid facts, FIR No. 294 of 2024 dated 31.08.2024 came to be registered against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 507 of the IPC at City Chowk Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar City.”

As a corollary, the Bench then discloses in para 11 stating that:
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an anticipatory bail application bearing Criminal Bail Application No. 1841 of 2024 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”). The Trial Court, by order dated 19.09.2024, allowed the application and enlarged the appellant on anticipatory bail. During the course of the investigation, both respondent No. 2 and her mother, in their statements, supported the prosecution’s version of events. Subsequently, on completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet bearing No. 143 of 2024 dated 25.10.2024 came to be filed against the appellant under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 507 of the IPC.”

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 12 that:
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an application bearing Criminal Application No. 601 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking quashing of FIR No. 294 of 2024.”

Truth be told, the Bench then observes in para 13 mentioning that:
By the impugned order dated 06.03.2025, the High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellant in FIR No. 294 of 2024 on the ground that a chargesheet had already been filed and the matter was ready for trial; the appellant could not sufficiently prove that the instant case was a clearly case of consensual relationship; that the relationship between the appellant and respondent No.2 could be termed as a fiduciary relationship inasmuch as the appellant was discussing the maintenance case of respondent No.2 with her; and that in view of the aforesaid, the facts of the present case warranted the conduct of a trial to test the veracity of the allegations made by respondent No.2 and to ascertain whether the acts alleged to have occurred between the appellant and respondent No.2 were against her will or otherwise.”

Do note, the Bench notes in para 23 that:
In the present case, a bare perusal of the FIR and the statement on record reveals that respondent No.2 met the appellant, who is a practising advocate, for the first time in reference to a case which was instituted by respondent No.2 against her husband. Thereafter, they exchanged numbers and regularly kept in touch. Over a passage of time, respondent No.2 and the appellant developed a close relationship and started meeting each other frequently. During this time, they established sexual relations multiple times between 12.03.2022 to 20.05.2024. The appellant contends that during the course of their relationship, not once did respondent No.2 file a complaint regarding the alleged non-consensual sexual relations, and it is inconceivable that the appellant would force himself upon her for so many years without there being any protest or complaint from the side of respondent No.2. Notably, it was only in August of 2024 when the appellant refused to fulfill respondent No.2’s demand of payment of Rs.1,50,000/- that the instant criminal case came to be instituted against the appellant.”

Quite significantly, the Bench notes in para 28 that:
We find that the present case is not a case where the appellant lured respondent No.2 solely for physical pleasures and then vanished. The relationship continued for a period of three long years, which is a considerable period of time. They remained close and emotionally involved. In such cases, physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage.”

Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 29 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
This Court has, on numerous occasions, taken note of the disquieting tendency wherein failed or broken relationships are given the colour of criminality. The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice. Such instances transcend the realm of mere personal discord. The misuse of the criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound concern and calls for condemnation.”

Most rationally, most forthrightly and resultantly, the Bench directs and holds in para 40 that:
In view of the foregoing analysis, we are unable to concur with the findings recorded by the High Court, inasmuch as the present case pertains to a consensual relationship, and the acts of respondent No.2 clearly manifest consent to such a relationship

devoid of any coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation as contemplated in Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In our opinion, the High Court’s refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS is unsustainable. The acts complained of in the present case occurred within the contours of a relationship that was, at the time, voluntary and willing. The continuation of the prosecution in such facts would be nothing short of an abuse of the court machinery.”

What’s more, the Bench then further directs and holds in para 41 that:
We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 06.03.2025 in application under Section 528 BNSS bearing Criminal Application No. 601 of 2025. The said application accordingly stands allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 294 of 2024 dated 31.08.2024, registered with City Chowk Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar City under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 507 of the IPC and Chargesheet No. 143 of 2024 dated 25.10.2024, filed in the Court of the 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, accordingly stands quashed.”

Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 42 that:
We express our sincere appreciation of the services rendered by Ms. Radhika Gowtam, learned Advocate-on-Record who had been appointed as Amicus Curiae in the matter. Registry of this Court is directed to pay honorarium of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the learned Amicus Curiae.”

In a nutshell, this latest judgment by Apex Court is a grim reminder yet again that misuse of rape laws is rampant by women which definitely cannot be glossed over any longer as even Apex Court has acknowledged it! Centre and Parliament must most promptly join hands to bring forth a new legislation in the upcoming winter session of Parliament to amend penal laws and not term sex with consent as rape so that this gross brazen abuse of rape laws by women after many years of consensual sex is nipped in the bud altogether because it makes a mockery of our legal system and of equality! It certainly merits just no reiteration that the earlier this is done, the better it shall be as it will save the lives of so many men from being trampled upon ruthlessly and being in jail for many years! It definitely now brooks no more delay any longer! No denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh