In Brief
A woman alleged that a man, after promising marriage, engaged her in sexual relations, later forced her into abortion, and then refused marriage. The High Court quashed the criminal prosecution, finding the complaint internally contradictory: she first claimed the abortion occurred at a hospital, but the hospital categorically denied her admission and stated no patients were treated during the relevant lockdown period. Her later statement changed the narrative entirely. The Supreme Court upheld the quashing, holding that even accepting her allegations at face value, they did not establish the essential elements of rape by false promise. The promise's falsity, not the promise itself, must be shown; here, a multi-year consensual relationship undermined that claim.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.