Presumption of Valid Consent in Long-Term Live-in Relationships – A Commentary on Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 635)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand delivers a seminal ruling on the intersection of consent, live-in relationships and prosecution for rape on the ground of an allegedly false promise to marry. By quashing the First Information Report (FIR) and criminal proceedings against the appellant, the Court for the first time formally articulates a presumption of valid, informed consent when two competent adults cohabit in a stable live-in arrangement over a substantial period.

The case arose from a two-year relationship between the appellant (Ravish Singh Rana) and the second respondent, culminating in an FIR under sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The gravamen of the charge was that sexual intercourse had been obtained under a false promise of marriage. The High Court of Uttarakhand declined to quash the FIR; the Supreme Court reversed that decision.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and quashed FIR No. 482/2023 in its entirety.
• It held that:
  1. A two-year live-in relationship with cohabitation gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that sexual relations were consensual.
  2. Mere subsequent refusal to marry, without evidence that the initial promise was false ab initio, does not vitiate consent.
  3. The absence of medical or contemporaneous evidence supporting allegations of force or assault strengthens the case for quashing.
• The Court emphasised an abuse of process standard under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (parimateria with Section 482 CrPC).

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State Of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608
   • Laid down the test that a false promise requires absence of intention from inception.
   • The Supreme Court relied on this to distinguish mere non-fulfilment from deceit.
2. Deepak Gulati v. State Of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675
   • Explained the need to scrutinise the mala fide motives behind a promise to marry.
   • The Court borrowed the “intention at the early stage” test while assessing the couple’s two-year cohabitation.
3. Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of U.P., (2021) 18 SCC 517
   • Recognised quashing in a consensual relationship that later soured.
   • Provided a factual template analogous to the present dispute.

3.2 Core Legal Reasoning

The bench (Karol J. and Misra J.) fused principles of consent under Section 375 IPC with socio-legal realities of modern relationships:

• Length and nature of relationship – Two years of cohabitation in a separate rented premises signals a voluntary union rather than one coerced by false promises.
• Settlement Deed of 19-11-2023 – Both parties recorded “we love each other,” negating allegations of forced intercourse the previous day.
• Live-in normativity – The Court recognised increasing prevalence of live-in relationships owed to women’s financial independence, advising courts to shun “pedantic approaches.”
• Presumption concept – While not codified, the Court created a practical presumption of consent that the prosecution must rebut with cogent evidence of deception at inception.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation and Criminal Jurisprudence

1. Shift in Consent Jurisprudence
   • Courts will likely require clearer proof of an initially deceitful intent before allowing rape prosecutions arising out of failed live-in relationships.
   • Possibility of more FIR quashings at the threshold under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CrPC.
2. Evidentiary Burden
   • Prosecutrix in long-term live-in arrangements must adduce contemporaneous evidence (messages, witnesses, medical records) to overcome the presumption of consent.
3. Gender-justice Debate
   • While curbing misuse of rape provisions, the ruling may invite critique for inadequately accounting for subtle coercion or power imbalance in non-marital unions.
4. Integration with the BNSS
   • The case is among the earliest to apply Section 528 BNSS, thereby illustrating continuity of inherent-power jurisprudence within the new criminal procedure code.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Live-in Relationship: A couple cohabiting without solemnising marriage. Recognised in Indian law for limited purposes such as domestic violence remedies and legitimacy of children.
• Consent under “misconception of fact” (Section 90 IPC): Consent is invalid if obtained by deceit, fraud or mistake about essential facts (here, the intention to marry).
• False vs. Unfulfilled Promise:
  • False Promise: No intention to marry from the start – criminally culpable.
  • Unfulfilled Promise: Genuine intent that later fails – generally not criminal.
• Quashing FIR (Section 528 BNSS / 482 CrPC): Extraordinary power of High Courts (and on appeal, the Supreme Court) to prevent miscarriage of justice by terminating baseless criminal proceedings.
• Abuse of Process: A proceeding that is vexatious, frivolous or instituted with malafide intent, warranting judicial intervention to preserve fairness.

5. Conclusion

Ravish Singh Rana announces a pragmatic doctrine for twenty-first-century relationships: a sustained, consensual live-in partnership ordinarily imports informed consent to sexual intimacy, rebuttable only by clear evidence of deceit from inception. By marrying doctrinal clarity with evolving social realities, the Supreme Court has both circumscribed the ambit of “rape on false promise to marry” and fortified safeguards against prosecutorial misuse. Future courts must calibrate this presumption sensitively, ensuring genuine victims of deception obtain redress while shielding individuals from vindictive criminal litigation.