Mere Breakup Between Consenting Couple Can't Lead To Rape Case On Man: Supreme Court

The girl had filed a complainant in 2019, alleging that the the man had sexually abused her under the false promise of marriage.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday while quashing a rape case against a man observed that a mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. The girl had filed a complainant in 2019, alleging that the the man had sexually abused her under the false promise of marriage.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh quashed the case against man accused of repeatedly raping a woman on the false pretext of marriage after taking note of the girl's prolonged association and physical relationship with him, implying her consent 

"A mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship," the order read.

The top court took a view that it was inconceivable for the girl to maintain a prolonged relationship with the man without her consent.

"It is inconceivable that the complainant (girl) would continue to meet the appellant (man) or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with him in the absence of voluntary consent on her part. Moreover, it would have been improbable for the appellant to ascertain the complainant's residential address, as mentioned in the FIR unless such information had been voluntarily provided by the complainant herself," the court observed.

As per the said FIR, the girl alleged that she was living with her brother and working at a Telecom. The man came in contact with the her in the year 2017 and they had a conversation on call and got to know each other. They first met in November 2017 and again in April 2018 at a park. The girl further stated that in January 2019, the appellant found her address and had a forceful sexual relationship with her. It was further stated that the man used to threaten her to have forceful sexual relationship with her. However, he later denied to marry her by giving excuses.

She further stated that the man used to take her to his room in Chhatarpur and have physical relationship with her. After the conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet dated 22.11.2019 was filed.

Being aggrieved by the said criminal proceedings, the man approached the High Court of Delhi seeking quashing of the FIR. However, the High Court dismissed the said petition filed by the man. The High Court noted that the alleged relationship between the parties was not the outcome of consent on the part of the girl and that allegations made in the FIR and in the statement made under Section 164 CrPC were sufficient to constitute alleged offences against the appellant. 

The man was booked under sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 

The man then moved the Supreme Court against the high court order.

The top court noted that the relationship between the parties was cordial and consensual in nature. It was of the view that even if the case of prosecution is taken at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the complainant engaged in a sexual relationship with accused solely on account of any assurance of marriage.

"A review of the FIR and the complainant's statement under Section 164 CrPC discloses no indication that any promise of marriage was extended at the outset of their relationship in 2017. Therefore, even if the prosecution's case is accepted at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the complainant engaged in a sexual relationship with the appellant solely on account of any assurance of marriage from the appellant. The relationship between the parties was cordial and also consensual in nature. A mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings," the order read.

The court said that what was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship. The court further observed that both the parties are now married and have moved on in their respective lives.

"Further, both parties are now married to someone else and have moved on in their respective lives. Thus, in our view, the continuation of the prosecution in the present case would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution," the apex court said.