As per case facts, the complainant, a married advocate with pending divorce, engaged in a physical relationship with the accused-appellant, also an advocate. She alleged he raped her on a ... false promise of marriage, which led to pregnancy and forced abortion, culminating in an FIR. The appellant contended the relationship was consensual and sought to quash the proceedings. The appeal arose because the High Court dismissed the appellant's Writ Petition to quash the FIR. The question arose whether the alleged rape on the false pretext of marriage constituted an offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, considering the complainant's marital status and professional background. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the facts indicated a consensual relationship gone sour, not rape. Given her married status and profession, the complainant could not have been genuinely duped by a promise of marriage that was legally impossible to fulfill. The court emphasized that a false promise must stem from an intent to deceive from the outset, which was not evident here. Concluding that the allegations, even if true, did not constitute rape, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.