'Should have checked horoscopes before getting into relationship': Supreme Court in rape case on pretext of marriage

Supreme Court

During a hearing that mixed seriousness with moments of levity, the Supreme Court on Tuesday made a wry observation in a case involving a police officer accused of rape on the pretext of marriage. The accused, a Superintendent of Police (SP), was alleged to have had sexual relations with a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) under a false promise to wed her, according to a report by Bar and Bench.

According to the report, when the woman’s counsel explained that the man had later refused marriage because their “horoscopes did not match,” Justice JB Pardiwala smiled and said, “Well, that’s a very important question. If stars don’t match, how will you lead a good marital life? So before entering into the relationship you should have got the horoscopes matched na. Only at the time of marriage you consulted an astrologer.”

The bench, comprising Justices Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, was hearing the victim-complainant’s challenge to a Patna High Court order that had quashed her FIR in 2024.

Clarifying the basis of the complaint, the bench asked, “You maintained the relationship on the basis of his assurance? That’s your case?” The lawyer responded that the accused had initiated the relationship but later backed out.

Both officers had served together in a district in 2014. During Tuesday’s proceedings, the Court also enquired if there had been any earlier efforts at settlement. Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, representing the accused officer, told the bench that mediation had been attempted earlier, but the “proposed amount was beyond his client’s capacity.”

“Five crores is beyond my capacity. I am now married. I have two kids,” said Parameshwar, to which Justice Viswanathan agreed that the demand indeed sounded steep, the report said.

The complainant’s counsel maintained that his client had been “forced into the relationship.” But Justice Pardiwala appeared skeptical: “Who would believe this? You are a DSP.” The lawyer replied that the SP, being her superior, had initiated the contact and “pursued her persistently through messages.

When asked about their ages, the Court was told that the woman was over 40 and the accused was seven years younger.

Observing that prolonged litigation would not serve either side, the bench said, “Whatever might have happened in the past, in the peculiar facts of this case, we believe that fighting with each other is not going to be in the interest of the parties," according to the report.

Accordingly, the Court directed both parties to explore mediation and appointed former Jammu and Kashmir High Court Chief Justice Gita Mittal as mediator. The bench instructed the parties to get in touch with her and work out the modalities for the process.