Martanda Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. – Criminal Appeal No. 4722 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1582 of 2026) – 2026 INSC 1081 – 1 October 2026 – J. B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/73646/73646_2025_5_46_74858_Judgement_01-Oct-2026.pdf
Appellant and impugned order challenged
The appellant challenged the continuation of criminal proceedings arising from the charge-sheet and the order posting the Sessions case for framing of charges. The Supreme Court quashed the charge-sheet and closed the pending Sessions case. [para 9]
Factual matrix
The complainant and appellant met while preparing for competitive examinations, entered a relationship, and had a physical relationship for about three years on an understanding that they would marry. After the families’ marriage proposal failed, the complainant alleged that he had sexually exploited her on the pretext of marriage; she also stated that she would drop the charge if he married her. The Court found no clear assurance of marriage alleged in the complaint and considered the relationship consensual, without coercion or misrepresentation. [paras 2, 5, 6, 7, 8]
Other courts verdicts
The charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, and the matter proceeded as Sessions Case No. 216 of 2025 before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur. The Sessions Court had posted the case for framing of charges; the Supreme Court subsequently quashed the charge-sheet and closed the proceedings. [para 9]
Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent
The appellant sought to end the prosecution, while the State appeared through standing counsel; the second respondent, though served, did not appear. The Court applied the principle that a failed promise to marry does not by itself establish misconception of fact: evidence must show that, from the beginning, the accused never intended to marry. It concluded that the complaint disclosed neither a clear assurance nor consent caused by coercion or misrepresentation, and that criminal proceedings could not be used as a strong-arm tactic to compel marriage. [paras 3, 4, 7, 8]
Ratio Decidendi
A consensual relationship does not establish consent under fear or misconception merely because a marriage proposal later fails. Criminal liability based on a promise to marry requires adequate evidence that the accused lacked any intention to fulfil that promise from the outset; where the complaint does not disclose that basis, continuation of the prosecution is unwarranted. [paras 4, 7, 8, 9]
Directions issued
The charge-sheet in the pending case was quashed, no further proceedings were permitted on the charge against the appellant, and the Sessions case was ordered closed. The appeal was allowed, and any pending applications were rejected. [paras 9, 10, 11]
Important paragraph
Judgment reference: 4. Before looking into the facts, the Court considered Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana and reproduced paragraph 24:
“There must be adequate evidence to show that at the initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever of keeping the promise to marry. […] Failure to keep a promise made about a future uncertain date does not always amount to misconception of fact. […] The court must be assured that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended to marry her.” [para 4]
No allegations: 7. We cannot but reiterate the proposition as enumerated in the above extract that the consent under fear or misconception cannot be loosely inferred to fasten criminal liability on one of the parties when both admittedly, had a consensual relationship and the other party willingly permitted physical relationship. Even on a bare reading of the complaint, there is no clear assurance or a promise made of marriage, since the specific allegation is that they entered into a physical relationship after courtship, fully knowing the consequences, but alleged to be under the pretext of marriage; clearly an afterthought. The 2nd respondent is a well-educated woman, who entered into a consensual relationship and carried it on, for three years, allegedly on the pretext of marriage, which never fructified. She categorically states that she would drop the charge, if he marries her. A criminal prosecution cannot be reduced to a strong-arm tactic.
No offence: 8. We are unable to find any criminal culpability on the appellant who entered into a consensual relationship with the 2nd respondent, which consent cannot be said to be coerced or obtained on a misrepresentation.
Quash
9. We find absolutely no reason to allow the continuance of the proceedings. The chargesheet filed as Charge Sheet No.199 of 2025 dated 17.06.2025, produced as Annexure P4, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, has now matured into Session Case No.216 of 2025 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur (C.G.). Annexure P6 is the order posting the case for framing of charges. The charge-sheet filed in the said case shall stand quashed. There shall be no further proceedings taken on the said charge levelled against the appellant and the proceeding in S.C. No.216 of 2025 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur (C.G.) shall stand closed.
Resources
– Judgments Cited
– Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 — Explains that a failed promise to marry does not alone establish misconception of fact; the accused’s lack of intent must exist from the beginning.
– Acts and Sections Involved
– Indian Penal Code, 1860
– Section 90 — Consent given under fear or misconception of fact.
