Failed Consensual Relationship Is Not Rape: Supreme Court in Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State [2026 INSC 1179]

In Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State – Station House Officer, Kadirur Police, Tellicherry, Kannur District & Another (2026 INSC 1179), the Supreme Court held that the crucial ingredients of the offences under Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were entirely absent, and that the probability of their commission was non-existent (paras 36, 61–62). A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan applied the discharge test under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and found that the complainant had continued the relationship after learning of the appellant's earlier marriage (paras 42, 53). The Kerala High Court's order dated 21.05.2025 and the Trial Court's orders were set aside and the appellant was discharged (para 64).

Status: Kerala High Court's common order dated 21.05.2025 and the Trial Court's orders set aside by the Supreme Court in these appeals (para 64).

Headnote: Consensual Relationship and Discharge

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 420, 493, 494, 495 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 156(3), 227, 482 – Discharge – Prima facie case – Consent and misconception of fact – Knowledge of earlier marriage – Long cohabitation – Failed consensual relationship – Abuse of process of law.

Held: (i) At the stage of Section 227 CrPC, the court makes a limited examination of the material to see whether commission of the offence is probable; it is not a pre-trial, nor mere deference to the prosecution (paras 28–30).

(ii) The word "repeatedly" in Section 376(2)(n) IPC denotes separate acts of sexual assault, not acts forming part of an ongoing consensual relationship (paras 37–38, 47).

(iii) Where the complainant knew of the earlier marriage within months and voluntarily continued to cohabit, it is untenable to say her consent rested on a belief that she was the legal wife (paras 39–42, 53).

(iv) A relationship turning sour cannot on its own convert earlier consent into rape; regret after a relationship ends must be distinguished from absence of consent built on deceit from the outset (paras 42–44).

(v) Section 420 IPC requires deceit inducing delivery of property or dealing with a valuable security; no such material existed (paras 49–51).

(vi) The ingredients of Sections 493, 494 and 495 IPC were not made out, as no valid marriage was shown prima facie and the complainant was aware of the earlier marriage (paras 52–56).

(vii) Consent may stand vitiated where a woman is genuinely kept in the dark about the true position; each case turns on facts and evidence, not allegations or moral presumptions (paras 58–59).

(paras 24–65)

Case Details: Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State (2026 INSC 1179)

Final Outcome: Appeals allowed; application for discharge allowed; orders of the High Court and the Trial Court set aside; appellant discharged from the offences alleged against him (paras 64–65).

Effect on lower order: Kerala High Court's common order dated 21.05.2025 in Crl. R.P. No. 295/2015 and Crl. M.C. No. 1221/2015, and the Trial Court's orders, set aside (para 64).

Case: Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State – Station House Officer, Kadirur Police, Tellicherry, Kannur District & Another

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1179

Case No.: Criminal Appeals of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 10173–10174 of 2025)

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable

Date of Decision: 30 October 2026

Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna (author) and Justice R. Mahadevan

Relevant Acts & Sections: Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 30, 376, 376(2)(n), 420, 493, 494, 495; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 156(3), 227, 482; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12(1)

Impugned Order: Common order dated 21.05.2025 of the Kerala High Court dismissing Crl. R.P. No. 295/2015 and Crl. M.C. No. 1221/2015 (paras 2, 10)

Counsel: Sri R. Basant, Senior Counsel, for the appellant; Sri K. Rajeev, AOR, for Respondent No. 2 (para 13)

Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)

Key Holdings of the Supreme Court

• At the discharge stage, the question is the probability or likelihood that the accused committed the offence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt (paras 28–29).
• Section 376(2)(n) IPC targets repeated sexual assault; acts within an ongoing consensual relationship cannot be severed artificially to fit it (paras 37–38, 47).
• Continued cohabitation after learning of the earlier marriage is highly suggestive of a consensual relationship (paras 42, 53).
• Physical intimacy during a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as rape because the relationship soured (para 44).
• Courts must view the entire relationship holistically rather than from the perspective of its end (para 45).
• Genuine cases must be pursued with vigour, and the protection of Section 376 and Sections 493–495 IPC remains for women who are truly wronged (paras 46, 59).
• Criminal law cannot be used to settle personal scores, exact revenge or coerce an individual (para 60).

Brief Facts of the Case

After her divorce from an earlier marriage, Respondent No. 2 became acquainted with the appellant. She alleged that he represented himself to be a bachelor and offered to marry her. In 1996 they travelled to Mysuru, where they were married at a temple. They lived together as a couple until 2003 (para 3).

Alleging neglect, Respondent No. 2 filed proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, registered as M.C. No. 3/2008 and re-registered as M.C. No. 31/2009. In those proceedings the appellant disclosed that he was already married with two children. The complaint was dismissed on 31.08.2009, and the criminal appeal against that dismissal also failed (para 4).

She then filed a private complaint under Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 IPC, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 04.04.2011. A second complaint with similar allegations was referred to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC, and FIR No. 503/2011 was registered at Kadirur Police Station (paras 5–7).

The appellant's petition under Section 482 CrPC (Crl. M.C. No. 5051/2013) was disposed of on 19.11.2013 with a direction to decide his discharge application expeditiously. On 09.01.2015, the Sessions Court rejected the discharge petition, his challenge to territorial jurisdiction and his request for further investigation (paras 8–9).

By a common order dated 21.05.2025, the Kerala High Court dismissed his revision and petition, upholding the finding of a prima facie case. On 18.07.2025 the Supreme Court issued notice and stayed further proceedings in S.C. No. 371/2013 (paras 10, 12).

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the allegations in FIR No. 503 of 2011 disclose sufficient material to warrant continuing criminal proceedings against the appellant, or whether he is liable to be discharged (para 24).
2. Whether the physical relationship was procured by deception or a false promise (para 40).

Court's Findings and Reasoning

Appellant's case (paras 14–19): The appellant argued that the parties were in a consensual relationship between 1996 and 2003, and that the proceedings began years later, after a similar complaint had been dismissed for non-prosecution. He relied on the complainant's statement in the DV Act proceedings that his brother had told her of his marriage within months, and on her inability to identify the temple. He called the prosecution an abuse of process.

Respondent No. 2's case (paras 20–22): It was argued that a complaint dismissed for non-prosecution was no bar, and that the case now rested on investigation and a chargesheet. She said she believed the appellant's reassurances, relying on IVF records he signed as "husband", a lease agreement and a joint savings account. She explained the delay by saying she had been isolated in Mysuru.

Discharge test (paras 25–30): Applying Prafulla Kumar Samal and Sajjan Kumar, the Court held that the inquiry at Section 227 is limited. It is neither a pre-trial nor deference to the prosecution, and what is evaluated is the probability that the accused committed the offence. No fixed threshold can be laid down, and the exercise is fact-specific.

Section 376(2)(n) IPC (paras 37–48): The Court explained that "repeatedly" denotes separate acts of assault. Since the complainant knew of the earlier marriage within a few months and stayed, it was "untenable and incredulous" that she continued to believe she was the legal wife on the basis of alleged oral reassurances (para 42). The relationship was consensual between two adults, and the ingredients of the offence were not made out (paras 47–48).

Caution on both sides (paras 43–46): The Court noted a worrying trend of ended relationships being retrospectively reframed as assault, and said this dilutes the gravity of rape. It also sounded a note of caution that rape remains heavily underreported and that genuine cases must be pursued with vigour.

Section 420 IPC (paras 49–51): Cheating under this provision requires deceit inducing delivery of property or dealing with a valuable security. Even taking the allegation at face value, no property was delivered and no valuable security was made, altered or destroyed.

Sections 493, 494 and 495 IPC (paras 52–56): Continued cohabitation after knowing of the earlier marriage ruled out cohabitation on the premise of lawful marriage. IVF documents and joint accounts showed a long-standing personal relationship, not a marriage. The complainant could not name the temple, and the priest's statement gave no details of the rituals, so no valid marriage was shown prima facie.

Conclusion (paras 57–63): The Court recorded that consent may be vitiated where a woman is genuinely kept in the dark, but the facts here did not show that. It held that the High Court erred in finding a prima facie case, and that both the Trial Court and the High Court ought to have discharged the appellant.

Final Outcome and Directions

• The appellant's application seeking discharge was allowed (para 64).
• The impugned order of the High Court and the orders of the Trial Court were set aside (para 64).
• The appellant was discharged from the offences alleged against him (para 64).
• The appeals were allowed in these terms (para 65).

Legal Principle Laid Down

At the stage of discharge under Section 227 CrPC, the court asks whether the commission of the offence is probable on the material taken as it stands. A consensual relationship between adults does not become rape merely because it ends or turns sour. Consent obtained by deception must be distinguished from later regret. Where a woman knows of the man's earlier marriage and continues the relationship, consent cannot be said to rest on a belief in lawful marriage, though genuine cases of deceit remain fully protected.

Precedents Relied Upon

• Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 – Relied upon – principles for framing charge or discharge under Section 227 CrPC. Discussed at paras 26, 62.
• Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368 – Relied upon – parameters of the powers under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC. Discussed at paras 27, 62.

Important Paragraphs of the Judgment

Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.

Para 42: "The mere factum of the relationship having turned sour and acrimonious cannot on its own convert earlier incidences of consent to sexual acts into offences of rape."

Para 44: "...physical intimacy that occurred during the currency of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as acts of rape merely because the relationship soured and no longer subsists."

Para 46: "But equally, the justice system must not be turned into a tool of vengeance when relationships fail."

Para 48: "Society and courts must discourage the weaponisation of criminal law in the aftermath of an emotional discord between two consenting adults."

Para 59: "However, the application of this principle must be guided by facts and evidence in each case, and not by mere allegations or moral presumptions."

Para 60: "Criminal law cannot be used as munitions to settle personal scores, exact revenge or coerce an individual to act in any particular way."

Practical Impact of the Ruling

• For the accused seeking discharge: Point to admitted facts, such as knowledge of an earlier marriage and long cohabitation, to show that the ingredients are absent (paras 42, 53).
• For complainants: Genuine deception remains actionable, but the case must rest on evidence that the true position was concealed (paras 58–59).
• For trial courts: Examine the relationship as a whole at the Section 227 stage, rather than from the point at which it ended (paras 28, 45).
• For police and prosecutors: Under Section 420 IPC, check for delivery of property or a valuable security, not merely alleged deceit (paras 49–51).
• For criminal lawyers: For Sections 493–495 IPC, test proof of the ceremony and of a marriage valid in law (paras 54–56).

FAQs on Consensual Relationship and Rape Charges

1. What did the Supreme Court hold in Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State?

It held that the ingredients of Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 IPC were not made out, and discharged the appellant, setting aside the High Court and Trial Court orders (paras 61–64).

2. Does a failed relationship amount to rape?

Not by itself. The Court held that physical intimacy during a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as rape merely because the relationship soured (paras 42, 44).

3. Can consent be vitiated by concealment of an earlier marriage?

Yes, it may be, where the woman is genuinely kept in the dark. Here the complainant knew of the earlier marriage within months and continued the relationship (paras 42, 53, 59).

4. What is the test for discharge under Section 227 CrPC?

The court examines the material in a limited way to see whether commission of the offence is probable. Grave suspicion can justify a charge, but it is not a pre-trial (paras 26–29).

5. Why did the Section 420 IPC charge fail?

Because no property was delivered and no valuable security was made, altered or destroyed as a result of the alleged deceit (paras 49–51).

Keywords: 2026 INSC 1179, Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State, consensual relationship not rape, discharge under Section 227 CrPC, Section 376(2)(n) IPC, consent and misconception of fact, Section 420 IPC, Sections 493 494 495 IPC, earlier marriage, prima facie case, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice R. Mahadevan, Supreme Court reportable judgment, criminal lawyer

Related on LegalTaxGuru

• More Supreme Court reportable judgments
• Civil/Criminal articles

Download Judgment PDF – Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State

Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 1179 – Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State – Station House Officer, Kadirur Police & Another – Download Judgment PDF

Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).

Read more: Supreme Court – Reportable · Civil/Criminal