SC Verdict : False Promise to Marry Rape Case Quashed! Can It Be Settled Amicably? Court Says YES

New Delhi- In a landmark ruling that's sparking debates on consent, settlements, and justice, the Supreme Court has quashed an FIR in a Kerala rape case stemming from a false promise to marry. The bench, led by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, greenlit an amicable resolution, allowing the accused to return ₹3.54 lakh in cash and 20.040 grams of gold (approx. 2.5 sovereigns) to the victim. This stems from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 17845/2024 and 18408/2024, emphasizing reconciliation in sensitive cases while prioritizing victim restitution.

The FIR (No. 333/2022) was lodged on May 24, 2022, at Balussery Police Station, Kozhikode, under IPC Sections 376(2)(n) (rape on promise to marry), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 506 (criminal intimidation). The complainant, a married woman separated from her husband Najeeb (wed Dec 5, 2010; two kids), alleged the accused, who was aiding her divorce case, lured her to his home in Dec 2017 for forced intercourse, snapped compromising photos for blackmail, and repeated assaults in 2018-2022 at friends' homes and resorts under marriage vows. He also allegedly swindled ₹3.54 lakh and gold ornaments from her.

Fearing arrest, the accused sought anticipatory bail (Bail App. No. 4814/2022), rejected by Kerala High Court on July 6, 2022: "As allegation of rape is specifically stated in the complaint, the same requires custodial interrogation." A quashing plea under CrPC Section 482 (Crl. MC No. 4857/2022) was dismissed on Nov 8, 2024, with the court noting, "The allegations require investigation and therefore, interference in the FIR could not be quashed at that stage."

The apex court issued notice on Dec 19, 2024, halting coercive action. On March 20, 2025, parties were urged for settlement. By July 21, 2025, the accused offered restitution; on Aug 18, he committed to depositing funds and gold. After hearings, the bench disposed the appeals, prioritizing closure via compromise.

What did the Court say

On the settlement's viability: "In order to give a quietus to the entire dispute, [the accused] is willing to return the amount as well as the gold ornaments." Directing restitution, the court said, "We order that the amount of Rs.3,54,000... shall be permitted to be withdrawn either by the second respondent or the nominee of the second respondent... after due verification."

On gold handover: "Gold weighing 20.040 grams... shall be deposited before the Registrar General of the Kerala High Court... [and] released either to the second respondent or to her nominee after due verification."

Final disposal: "The appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.17845/2024 is allowed in the aforesaid terms... Consequently, the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.18408/2024 is disposed of in the aforesaid terms."

This ruling suggests the court's push for "amicable settlement" in consensual-turned-coercive cases, balancing probe needs with victim empowerment. Critics hail it as progressive; others worry it might dilute MeToo momentum. Kerala authorities must comply, with monitoring per SC directives.