New Delhi: The Supreme Court has quashed a rape case and the consequent charge sheet against a man, holding that the parties were in a consensual relationship that went sour and that the complaint was filed to pressure him into marriage. The court found that no promise of marriage was alleged to have induced the relationship, and that continuing the trial would serve no purpose.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing an appeal against a High Court order refusing to quash FIR No. 326 of 2025, registered on 05.12.2025 at Police Station Manipur, Surguja, Chhattisgarh. The FIR alleged sexual assault and refusal to marry against the appellant, Sachin Gupta, and assault and threats against other accused to stop her from lodging a complaint about an incident of 29.10.2025.
The complainant, a bank employee, alleged that on 05.05.2024 the appellant took her in a car, got her intoxicated and raped her. On regaining consciousness, she said, he begged her not to report it and agreed to marry her. She claimed to have been impregnated twice, in October 2024 and February 2025, and both pregnancies were aborted. She further alleged that on 29.10.2025 the appellant and his cousin attacked her in a hotel room, assaulted her in front of the staff and threatened to make videos of their intimate relationship viral. She said she was threatened again the next day while on her way to file a complaint, and later by the appellant's father.
The appellant's case was that he met her as a frequent customer at the bank, where she pestered him to invest in its schemes. After he refused, he said, she extorted money from him, which he first paid and later refused to pay. He had filed two complaints, dated 07.11.2025 and 02.12.2025, and said the FIR was a counter blast to the police inquiries on them.
The Bench applied the four-step test for quashing laid down in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh. It asks whether the accused's material is sound and indubitable, whether it rules out the allegations, whether it has been refuted by the prosecution, and whether trial would abuse the process of court.
On the first step, the court held that the appellant's material showed payments made to the complainant and two complaints lodged before the police. On the second, it noted that the relationship was admittedly a courtship, and that even by the complainant's account the desire to marry came only after the alleged rape and was voluntarily accepted. "No allegation of a promise to marry, proffered to entice the 2nd respondent into a sexual relationship, was raised," the court observed. It also noted that the rape allegation was delayed by more than one and a half years.
The court further noted that the hotel assault was never reported to the police, either by the hotel staff or by the complainant, and neither were the alleged threats by the appellant's relatives. The medical report did not support her claim of two aborted pregnancies. The Bench concluded that the complaint was filed specifically to coerce the appellant into marrying her, failing which she wanted punitive action. On the fourth step, it held that no purpose would be served by a trial.
Setting aside the High Court's order, the Bench quashed Charge Sheet No. 5 of 2026 dated 19.01.2026 in Criminal Case No. 147 of 2026 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, and directed that no criminal proceedings continue against the appellant or any other accused in the FIR. The court said the foundation of the case was rape on a promise of marriage, and that the allegations of hurt and criminal intimidation against the other accused also failed to impress it.
Since the FIR was quashed, the court held that proceedings on the appellant's two complaints also need not be pursued. It added that it passed these consequential directions only because it was convinced the relationship was consensual and that each side had begun accusing the other after it soured. The appeal was allowed.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. K. Parameshwar, Senior Advocate.
For the State of Chhattisgarh: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Advocate-on-Record.
Case Title: Sachin Gupta vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 4721 of 2026 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 4615 of 2026) [2026 INSC 1082]
