In the case of Jaspal Singh Kaural v. State of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, the Supreme Court of India addressed a delicate and intricate matter pertaining to Indian criminal law. The question at hand was whether or not a sexual relationship that was initially consensual but later turned sour might be considered rape if it was enticed by the promise of marriage.
The judgment, which was handed out on April 7, 2025 by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, provides clarification regarding the manner in which courts should handle claims of rape in accordance with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code regarding situations in which consent was given on an alleged promise of marriage.
Ultimately, the court decided that the evidence did not establish a case of rape or criminal intimidation, and as a result, it dismissed the proceedings that had been brought against the appellant. Significant guidance is provided by the verdict regarding the intersection of consent, dishonesty, and the misuse of criminal provisions in the context of personal relationships.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Contextual Information Regarding the Case
A woman filed the complaint, claiming that Jaspal Singh Kaural had engaged in a sexual connection with her on the basis of a promise to marry her and to take care of her and her children.
The woman also claimed that Jaspal Singh Kaural had promised to marry her. In spite of the fact that both parties were married to other people at the time, the relationship had begun as early as February of 2016.
According to the allegations made by the complainant, the appellant began a sexual connection with the promise of marriage in the year 2017, following the successful completion of the divorce proceedings with his spouse.
In addition, she revealed that she divorced her husband in 2019 on the basis of his guarantees over the matter. On the other hand, she filed a complaint, which resulted in the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, when the appellant reportedly refused to marry her in 2021 and even threatened her children.
During the course of the investigation, the appellant admitted to having a romantic involvement with the one who filed the complaint, and even purchased a mangalsutra that was inscribed with their initials.
Taking into consideration the complainant’s level of maturity and awareness over the continuation of the connection, the sessions court decided to release the accused. Following the subsequent reversal of this order by the High Court, which resulted in the charges being reinstated, the appellant submitted their case to the Supreme Court.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )
Issues of Law That Are Before the Court
The fundamental legal issue that was brought before the Supreme Court was whether or not the Sessions Court had made the right decision in dismissing the appellant in accordance with Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Additionally, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether or not the claims, even if accepted at face value, revealed the conduct of offenses under Sections 376 and 506 the Indian Penal Code.
It was necessary for the court to investigate whether or not the complainant’s agreement to the sexual relationship was tainted by a false promise to marry, as well as whether or not the element of criminal intimidation was successfully established.
Acquiring Knowledge of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Consent
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code addresses the crime of rape. In accordance with Clause Two of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, a sexual act is considered to be a kind of rape if the woman’s permission is obtained through a “misconception of fact.” A situation in which a guy makes a fake promise of marriage to a woman in order to coerce her into going through with a sexual act is included in this category.
Nevertheless, not every broken promise may be considered a guarantee of a fraudulent promise. The legal system has made it very obvious that there is a significant difference between a simple breach of promise and an intentional false promise that is made without the aim of carrying it out. It is only in the latter scenario that the law considers such consent to be legally void and classifies the act as rape.
The observations made by the Supreme Court
When attempting to clarify that not every sexual connection that is entered into with the promise of marriage constitutes rape, the Supreme Court placed a significant amount of weight on its previous decisions, particularly Naim Ahmed v. State (National Capital Territory of Delhi) and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra.
In the case of Jaspal Singh Kaural, the complainant had maintained the relationship for close to five years, throughout which time she was aware of the repercussions that would result from her acts being taken.
Her decision to seek a connection with the appellant led her to divorce her husband, despite the fact that she was an adult woman who was already married and had children. No evidence was presented to support the contention that the appellant had never meant to marry her from the beginning of their relationship.
The court emphasized that the fact that the couple did not marry is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the initial promise was not true. Furthermore, a longstanding consensual relationship that includes emotional and social participation cannot be recast as rape just because the relationship ended. This is because the connection does not contain any sexual activity.
The Function of Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Discharge
According to Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a Sessions Court has the authority to release an accused person if, after reviewing the case records and listening to all sides of the argument, it determines that there is insufficient evidence to continue with the case.
In this particular case, the Sessions Court exercised its discretion and dismissed the accused on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the claims.
In the process of reversing the release, the High Court had engaged in a detailed factual investigation, which, as the Supreme Court pointed out, is not the appropriate technique at the stage of the process of framing charges.
During that stage, the courts are supposed to determine whether the facts that have been disclosed, on a prima facie basis, justify continuing with the trial. They are not expected to conduct a pretrial proceeding.
What the Court’s Decision Means and Why It Matters
The appeal was granted by the Supreme Court, which dismissed the ruling issued by the High Court and reinstated the order issued by the Sessions Court to discharge the defendant. The FIR and the criminal actions that were currently being pursued against the appellant were likewise dismissed.
The Supreme Court strongly highlighted that the criminal justice system should not be abused in order to settle personal scores that are the result of broken relationships. Individuals who are considered to be mature, particularly those who have families and previous marriages, are expected to behave with awareness. When persons like this continue relationships for extended periods of time and act upon promises that are eventually not realized, it does not necessarily mean that they were tricked.
This judgment reaffirms the idea that the criminal justice system should not be weaponized to avenge personal grievances that do not come within the framework of criminal culpability. This principle was reaffirmed by this verdict.
An important explanation on the nature of consent in intimate relationships and how the courts should interpret promises of marriage is provided by the ruling that was handed down in the case of Jaspal Singh Kaural v. State of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
While it is true that the law must protect persons against fraud, it must also ensure that it is not used as a tool for vengeance in failed consensual relationships. This is something that the Court pointed out, and it is not an incorrect observation.
The significance of this example lies in the fact that it highlights the need to differentiate between actual instances of dishonesty and those instances in which the relationship collapsed due to personal or mutual incompatibility. Providing a balanced perspective that respects both individual agency and judicial justice, the ruling offers a balanced perspective.
Author
About the Author
