The Supreme Court's bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh recently noted that there is a difference between a violation of a commitment made in good faith but not kept and a rape case when dismissing a rape case.

There is no doubt that the appellant and respondent No. 2 had a consenting relationship from 2009 to 2011. Respondent No. 2 asserts that the appellant's guarantee of marriage served as the foundation for the mutually consenting sexual connection. The complaint was submitted in 2016—three years after it had been filed and an FIR with the date 16.12.2016 was registered under Sections 376 and 420 of the IPC.

The bench said, "We heard skilled counsel for parties, we conclude ex facie that the filing of the FIR in the current instance is an abuse of the criminal process."

Additionally, “the parties opted to enjoy a long-term physical relationship without being married. The festivities broke down for an unknown cause. Both before and after marriage, it might take place. After another three years had passed, respondent No. 2 made the decision to file a police report. The facts are so obvious, as we have said above, that we have no qualms about nullifying the FIR from December 16, 2016, and ending the proceedings. Permitting additional FIR investigations would amount to harassing the appellant through the criminal justice system.”

The Supreme Court's ruling in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2019) 9 SCC 608, which quashed the FIR in the factual scenario where the complainant was aware that there were barriers to marrying the accused but still continued to engage in sexual relations, gives us the confidence to pursue this course of action. A difference was established between a breach of a commitment made in good faith but subsequently not kept and a fraudulent promise to marry made with the knowledge that it would be violated. This occurred in relation to Section 90 of the IPC, 1860 and Section 375 Explanation 2.