“A mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings,” says Supreme Court

On November 20, 2024 (Wednesday), the Supreme Court (SC) bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh observed, “A mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings.” The bench added, “What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a color of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship.” The top court was hearing a criminal case against a man accused of raping a woman on the pretext of false promise of marriage. In this case, the complainant lodged an FIR in 2019 alleging that the appellant had repeatedly exploited her sexually and had a forceful sexual relationship under the false promise of marriage. She also said, “The appellant used to threaten the complainant to have forceful sexual relationship with her.” She added that the appellant threatened her to kill her brother if she refused to have physical relationship with him. The appellant approached the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the registered FIR for offences under Section 376(2)(n) (repeated rape) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court dismissed the appellant's petition. 

After hearing the matter, the SC observed, “It is inconceivable that the complainant would continue to meet the appellant or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with him in the absence of voluntary consent on her part…It is also revealed that, at one point, both parties had an intention to marry each other, though this plan ultimately did not materialize. The appellant and the complainant were in a consensual relationship. They are both educated adults.” The bench added, “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…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 bench concluded, “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.”