'Worrying Trend' : Supreme Court Expresses Concerns At Using Criminal Law Against Men After Breakup Of Consensual Relationship

The Supreme Court has expressed concerns about the "worrying trend" of invoking criminal law against men on allegations of rape on the false pretext of marriage after a long consensual relationship turned sour.

While quashing an FIR in a rape case against a man, a bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh observed :

“It is evident from the large number of cases decided by this Court dealing with similar matters as discussed above that there is a worrying trend that consensual relationships going on for prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence.”

The Court added, “if criminality is to be attached to such prolonged physical relationship at a very belated stage, it can lead to serious consequences. It will open the scope for imputing criminality to such long-term relationships after turning sour, as such an allegation can be made even at a belated stage to drag a person in the juggernaut of stringent criminal process. There is always a danger of attributing criminal intent to an otherwise disturbed civil relationship of which the Court must also be mindful”.

The same bench had expressed similar concerns in a judgment delivered last week as well.

The appellant challenged the Bombay High Court's dismissal of his writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR filed against him under Sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant alleged that the appellant had engaged in a sexual relationship with her under a false promise of marriage for nearly a decade.

The appellant contended that the relationship was consensual and the allegations were false, initiated only after he discontinued financial assistance to the complainant.

The Court rejected the complainant's argument that the appellant had forceful intercourse with her under the garb of a false marriage promise.

The judgment authored by Justice N. Kotiswar Singh noted that the decade-long physical relationship, maintained without consistent protest or objection, suggested consensual involvement rather than coercion. The Court said that it was implausible that the complainant could have continued the relationship for nine years under a mere promise of marriage, without any evidence of deception at the outset.

“Further, it appears that discontinuance of financial support to the complainant, rather than the alleged resiling from the promise to marry by the appellant appears to be the triggering point for making the allegation by the complainant after a long consensual relationship for about nine years.”, the Court observed.

Also, the court touched upon the aspect of consent where the complainant alleged that her consent to physical intercourse was taken under a misconception of fact.

“In our view, if a man is accused of having sexual relationship by making a false promise of marriage and if he is to be held criminally liable, any such physical relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise made and not qualified by other circumstances or consideration. A woman may have reasons to have physical relationship other than the promise of marriage made by the man, such as personal liking for the male partner without insisting upon formal marital ties. Thus, in a situation where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of the alleged promise made by the appellant to marry her. Thus, unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby having a direct nexus with the physical relationship without being influenced by any other consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent under misconception of fact.”, the Court said.

“In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion that in the present case no prima facie case has been made out about commission of an offence of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC. Further, on perusal of the FIR it is also noted that no allegations of cheating have been made against the appellant to fall within the scope of Section 420 IPC nor of any of the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Appearances:

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Mrunal Dattatraya Buva, Adv. Mr. Dhairyashil Salunkhe, Adv. Mr. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, AOR

For Respondent(s) Ms. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.

Also Read - Mere Breakup Of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Cannot Result In Criminal Proceedings : Supreme Court

Case Title: MAHESH DAMU KHARE VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 921

Click here to read/download the judgment