Criminal Law & Consensual Live-In Relationships Decided July 14, 2022

Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan

Official Law Report Citations 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886 | (2022) 13 SCALE 308 | 2022 INSC 725 | AIR 2022 SC 3676

Bench Composition / Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath

Statutory Provisions & Mappings: Sections 375, 376(2)(n) & 90 IPC Sections 63, 64 & 25 BNS 2023 Section 69 BNS 2023 (Deceitful Means Analysis) Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS Anticipatory Bail in Live-In Relationships

Precedential Crux & Golden Rule:

A prolonged consensual live-in relationship between two competent adults cannot be converted into an offence of rape under Section 376 IPC upon the subsequent breakdown of the relationship. Entering into physical intimacy with open eyes during a prolonged voluntary cohabitation does not constitute sex under misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC (Section 25 BNS), and a subsequent breach of promise to marry is fundamentally distinct from a fraudulent promise made at inception.

Official Supreme Court Judgment Record Certified Copy

Complete verbatim judicial transcript, bench coram, ratio decidendi, and official law report citations.

Download PDF

1. Comprehensive Factual Matrix & Procedural Trajectory

The complainant, a 21-year-old educated woman, lodged a First Information Report under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Mahila Thana, Banswara, Rajasthan, against the appellant, Ansaar Mohammad. In the FIR, the complainant alleged that she had been in a continuous romantic relationship and lived together with the appellant in a live-in arrangement for approximately four continuous years. She alleged that the appellant had repeatedly engaged in physical relations with her on the assurance and promise that he would marry her, but subsequently refused to marry her and threatened her.

Apprehending arrest by the police, the appellant moved an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC before the Sessions Court, which was rejected. The appellant then approached the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur praying for pre-arrest bail. The High Court summarily dismissed the anticipatory bail application, observing that the allegations involved serious offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC (repeated rape on the same woman) and warranted custodial interrogation. Aggrieved by the denial of anticipatory bail, the appellant approached the Supreme Court of India by way of a Special Leave Petition.

2. Specific Legal Issues & Questions of Law Framed

Consensual Cohabitation vs Offence of Rape: Does entering into a voluntary romantic relationship and prolonged live-in cohabitation by an adult woman constitute rape under Section 375 IPC upon the subsequent breakdown of the relationship?
Misconception of Fact Under Section 90 IPC / Section 25 BNS: What is the legal standard to establish that consent for sexual relations was vitiated by a 'misconception of fact' arising from a false promise of marriage?
Distinction Between False Promise and Breach of Promise: How must courts distinguish between a deceitful, fraudulent promise of marriage made at the inception of the relationship versus an honest breach of promise caused by supervening family objections or incompatibility?
Propriety of Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 CrPC (482 BNSS): Is custodial interrogation warranted in criminal complaints arising from consensual long-term romantic relationships where the identity and history of parties are admitted?

3. Authoritative Ratio Decidendi & Binding Legal Principles

1. Prolonged Live-In Relationships Are Consensual, Not Rape: Delivering the judgment, the Supreme Court held that where an adult woman enters into a live-in relationship and voluntarily cohabits with a man over a sustained period of four years, she does so with open eyes and full knowledge of the nature and consequences of her actions. Such prolonged physical intimacy cannot be retrospectively converted into an offence of rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC simply because the relationship later soured and did not culminate in marriage.

2. The Inception Test for 'Misconception of Fact' Under Section 90 IPC / Section 25 BNS: The Court reiterated that to vitiate consent under Section 90 of the IPC (Section 25 BNS 2023), the prosecution must establish that the accused had a mala fide and fraudulent intention from the very inception of the relationship, harboring a deceitful design never to marry the complainant and using the promise solely as a sham to extract sexual favors. Where parties cohabited voluntarily for years, an initial fraudulent intent cannot be presumed.

3. False Promise to Marry vs Breach of Promise: The Supreme Court firmly maintained the vital jurisprudential distinction between a false promise to marry and a breach of promise to marry. A breach of promise may occur due to unforeseen familial opposition, caste or religious barriers, or irreconcilable personal differences developing over time. While a breach of promise may have civil consequences, it does not constitute the criminal offence of rape.

4. Grant of Anticipatory Bail: The Court held that in cases involving long-term consensual relationships, custodial interrogation is wholly unnecessary. The personal liberty of the accused under Article 21 must be safeguarded against punitive arrest in matrimonial and romantic fallout disputes.

5. Comprehensive Analysis of Section 69 BNS 2023: In the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Parliament enacted Section 69, which penalizes sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, including false promises of employment, promotion, or marriage without any intention of fulfilling it. The doctrine in Ansaar Mohammad serves as the essential judicial compass for interpreting Section 69 BNS. The prosecution cannot invoke Section 69 BNS where a relationship was consensual and voluntary over a prolonged span; deceit requires proof of an active clandestine intention to defraud at the time the consent was first elicited.

6. Protection Against Pre-Trial Stigmatization: The Supreme Court emphasized that in romantic and live-in relationships between consenting adults, criminalizing personal disappointment damages both parties and clogs courts with retaliatory litigation. Where there is no element of physical violence, coercion, or intimidation, custodial incarceration is wholly unwarranted.

4. Significant Obiter Dicta & Institutional Observations

The Supreme Court made significant observations regarding autonomy and adult decision-making:

Individual Autonomy of Adults: The Court observed that adult citizens in a constitutional democracy possess the autonomy to choose their romantic partners and lifestyle, including entering into live-in arrangements. The criminal law must not be invoked as a weapon of retribution when consensual arrangements end in personal disappointment.
Caution Against Criminalizing Relationship Failures: The Bench warned against the growing trend of lodging rape FIRs following broken courtships, observing that the severe penal consequences of Section 376 IPC were enacted to punish violent sexual predators, not to adjudicate failed romantic partnerships.

5. Operative Verdict & Dispositive Relief

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Rajasthan High Court, and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, Ansaar Mohammad.

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, holding that the prolonged four-year live-in relationship was entirely consensual.

6. Statutory Analysis & Comparative Legislative Mapping

Provision & Concept	Pre-2023 Statutory Framework	Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) & BNSS 2023
Rape & Vitiated Consent	Sections 375 & 376 IPC; Consent vitiated under Section 90 IPC (misconception of fact).	Sections 63 & 64 BNS 2023; Section 25 BNS governs consent given under misconception.
Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means	No specific provision; prosecuted under Section 376 read with Section 90 IPC.	Section 69 BNS 2023 explicitly penalizes sexual intercourse by deceitful means (including false promise to marry).
Anticipatory Bail	Section 438 CrPC; Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.	Section 482 BNSS 2023 preserves full jurisdiction of Sessions Courts and High Courts to grant pre-arrest bail.

7. Subsequent Judicial Treatment & Precedential Lineage

Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar (2005) 1 SCC 88: Formulated the principle that consent given under a misconception of fact requires proof of active deceit.
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608: Laid down the authoritative dual test for false promise of marriage under Section 90 IPC.
Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 18 SCC 191: Distinguished between consensual cohabitation and sexual assault.
Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan (2022 SCC OnLine SC 886): Reinforced that four years of voluntary live-in cohabitation negates allegations of rape.
Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023 SCC OnLine SC 89): Followed Ansaar Mohammad to acquit the accused where sexual relations were consensual and voluntary.

8. Practical Litigation Playbook & Strategic Checklist

Litigation Playbook: Defending False Promise Allegations Under Ansaar Mohammad & Section 69 BNS

For the Accused's Defense Counsel:
- Collate Proof of Voluntary Cohabitation: In Section 482 BNSS / 438 CrPC applications, produce joint rent agreements, hotel travel bookings, joint photographs, and mutual WhatsApp chats demonstrating an open, affectionate relationship.
- Establish the Chronological Span: Emphasize the duration of the relationship; under Ansaar Mohammad, a relationship spanning multiple years conclusively refutes the claim of a fraudulent promise made at inception.
- Apply the Section 69 BNS Benchmark: In cases under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, show that there was no "deceit" (such as suppressing existing marriage or false identity), but rather an honest attempt to cohabit that failed.
For the Prosecution / Complainant's Counsel:
- Demonstrate Active Deceit at Inception: Adduce evidence that the accused was already married, had engaged another person, or made explicit written commitments to marry solely to induce physical intimacy without any intention to fulfill them.
Strategic Checklist Under Section 69 BNS:
- Gather Mutual Communication Records: In pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS, file WhatsApp audio notes, email exchanges, and social media posts demonstrating that the couple mutually discussed wedding plans, family obstacles, or career difficulties, proving the absence of deceit under Section 69 BNS.
- Highlight Parity with Pramod Suryabhan Pawar: Establish that the physical relationship was an expression of mutual love and affection rather than being solely conditioned upon a transactional promise to marry.

Previous Precedent All Landmark Precedents Next Precedent