'Should Have Got Horoscopes Matched': Supreme Court to SP Accused of Rape on Promise to Marry

In a case where a Superintendent of Police is accused of raping a DSP on false promise of marriage, SC quipped the accused should have 'got horoscopes matched' before the relationship, since he later backed out citing horoscope mismatch.

A remarkable hearing took place when the Supreme Court looked into a case between two senior police officers, a Superintendent of Police (SP) accused of rape on the promise to marry, and a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) complainant. During the hearing the bench raised eyebrows by suggesting that the parties should have consulted an astrologer before entering into a relationship, after the accused backed out because 'the horoscopes did not match'. 

The case involves a SP and a DSP who served together in a district in 2014. The DSP lodged an FIR claiming the SP had initiated a sexual relationship under the promise of marriage and later refused to marry her when he discovered their horoscopes did not match, according to a report in Bar and Bench. The Patna High Court had earlier quashed the FIR in 2024. The complainant then moved the Supreme Court challenging that quashing.

The Supreme Court's remark on horoscopes 

When probing the basis of the FIR, the bench asked, "You maintained the relationship on the basis of his assurance? That's your case?" The complainant's counsel said yes. Then, when asked why the accused backed out, the answer came, "Because the horoscopes did not match." At that point Justice J. B. Pardiwala said,

"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 added this timely intervention was made to highlight that the reason given by the accused raises serious questions.

Legal issues at stake 

At the heart of the matter are several legal points:

• Whether a false promise of marriage can turn what was apparently a consensual relationship into rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. 
• Whether the accused intended to marry the complainant at the very beginning, or the promise was made merely to induce sexual relations (which would amount to deception).
• Whether the reason for backing out (here, horoscope mismatch) shows that the accused never truly meant to marry. The bench's reaction suggests the court sees layers of complexity in such cases.

The mediation route and court's suggestion 

Given the peculiar facts, the Supreme Court expressed view that battling each other in court 'may not be in the interest of the parties'. Accordingly the Court appointed Gita Mittal (ex-Chief Justice of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court) as mediator to guide the parties towards an amicable settlement. They have been directed to contact the mediator and work out modalities.

Why the horoscope reference caught attention 

While the remark about consulting an astrologer may appear light-hearted, the underlying significance is serious:

• It underscores that a cultural defence (here, astrological incompatibility) when used later to justify the breaking of a marriage promise may raise suspicion about the true intention behind the promise.
• It illustrates the court’s insistence that intention matters: if the promise to marry was false from the outset, the consent given by the complainant could be deemed obtained by deception.
• It also reflects how courts must balance cultural practices (such as horoscope matching) and legal principles of consent, deception and promise.

Parties entering into sexual relationships based on promises of marriage may find that courts will probe when the promise was made, whether it was genuine and why it was broken. Defences based on horoscope incompatibility or other cultural reasons may not suffice to show a change in mind if the promise was deceptive from the start.

Mediation is being encouraged by the court especially in cases where both parties are mature, professional persons and continuation of litigation may cause further harm rather than resolution.