The Supreme Court in Mandar Deepak Pawar vs State of Maharashtra quashed a rape case and differentiated between a false promise to marriage and a breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled.
The Court noted that the parties chose to have a physical relationship without marriage for a considerable period of time. For some reason, the parties fell apart. It can happen both before or after marriage. Thereafter also three years passed when respondent No.2 decided to register a FIR.
The Court heavily relied upon the view taken in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2019) 9 SCC 608 where in the factual scenario where the complainant was aware that there existed obstacles in marrying the accused and still continued to engage in sexual relations, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR. A distinction was made between a false promise to marriage which is given on understanding by the maker that it will be broken and a breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled. This was in the context of Section 375 Explanation 2 and Section 90 of the IPC, 1860.
In Pramod Suryabhan (supra) it was observed that "The "consent" of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the "consent" was vitiated by a "misconception of fact" arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act."