Mere breakup of relationship between consenting couple cannot result in criminal proceedings: Supreme Court

21/11/2024

NEW DELHI, Nov 20: Observing that the non-materialization of a consensual relationship into marriage cannot be given a criminal color, the Supreme Court today quashed a criminal case against the man accused of repeatedly raping a woman on the false pretext of marriage.
"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 bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh said.
The complainant lodged an FIR in September 2019, alleging that the appellant had sexually exploited her under the false promise of marriage, forcibly engaging in sexual relations with her. She also stated that the appellant had threatened her to keep engaging in physical relations, otherwise, he would harm her family.
The appellant approached the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the FIR registered for alleged offences committed under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with the case.
The Court found the complainant's allegations to be unbelievable. It noted that she continued meeting with the appellant even after the alleged forced sexual encounters, which indicated that the relationship was consensual. Also, the parties were educated adults.
There was no indication that the relationship commenced with a promise 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.", the court observed.
"As demonstrated in the above analysis, the facts as they stand, which are not in dispute, indicate that the ingredients of the offence under Sections 376 (2)(n) or 506 IPC are not established in the instant case. The High Court erred in concluding that there was no consent on the part of the complainant and therefore she was a victim of sexual assault over a period of time and therefore, proceeded to dismiss the application under Section 482 CrPC on a completely misconceived basis. The facts of the present case are appropriate for the High Court to have exercised the power available under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the court's process by continuing the prosecution.", the court held.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the pending FIR was quashed.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Dr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, AOR Mr. Nikhil Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Atul Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khare, Adv. Ms. Kirti Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Amita Agarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Ajay Kumar Prajapati, Adv. Mr. Ayush Anand, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma Ii, Adv. Mr. Veer Vikrant Singh, Adv.
Case Title: PRASHANT VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 904

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty