The Supreme Court today quashed a criminal case alleging repeated rape under the false pretext of marriage, observing that the non-materialization of a consensual relationship into marriage cannot be given a criminal color.
The Bench, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, held that a consensual relationship between two adults cannot be construed as criminal merely because it did not culminate in marriage.
Key Observations:
“A mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. What was consensual at the initial stages cannot be later termed criminal when the relationship does not fructify into marriage,” the Court stated.
There was no evidence that the relationship began with a promise of marriage.
Case Background:
The complainant alleged that the appellant sexually be exploited her on a false promise of marriage and threatened her family to compel her to continue the relationship. Based on her complaint, an FIR was registered in 2019 under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
The Delhi High Court had dismissed the appellant’s plea to quash the FIR, finding prima facie evidence to proceed with the case. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Findings:
The Court noted inconsistencies in the complainant’s allegations:
- The complainant continued to meet the appellant even after the alleged forced encounters, indicating the relationship was consensual.
- The complainant’s FIR and statement under Section 164 CrPC revealed no promise of marriage at the start of their relationship.
“The relationship was consensual and cordial, and no evidence suggests that the complainant engaged in it solely based on a promise of marriage,” the Court observed.
The Court criticized the High Court for erroneously concluding that there was no consent and for dismissing the appellant’s plea under Section 482 CrPC. It emphasized that such cases should not be allowed to abuse judicial processes.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the pending FIR, and reaffirmed the principles surrounding consent and misuse of legal provisions.
Case Details:
PRASHANT V. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Lawcutor 