Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Based on Long-Term Consensual Relationship — “The Complainant’s Conduct of Sustaining the Relationship for Over a Year, Visiting Lodges, and Maintaining Cordial Interactions Undermines Allegations of Non-Consensual Sex”

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Bombay High Court’s order dated 28.06.2024, and quashed C.R. No. 490/2023 dated 31.07.2023 and all proceedings in RCC No. 378/2023 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad. The Court held that:

“Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken as true, it does not appear from the record that the consent of the complainant was obtained against her will and merely on an assurance to marry.”

It observed that the criminal prosecution was “probably with an underlying motive and disgruntled state of mind” and found no prima facie case under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, or 506 IPC.

Facts

• The FIR was registered on 31.07.2023 at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara under IPC Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 & 506.
• The complainant alleged that between 08.06.2022 and 08.07.2023, the appellant had sexual relations with her on the false promise of marriage.
• She was previously married and had obtained a Khulanama. She resided with her 4-year-old son.
• The appellant was a 23-year-old B.Sc. (Agriculture) student living next door as a tenant.
• Alleged instances of sexual intercourse occurred in July 2022, September 2022, and January 2023 in various private locations.
• The appellant allegedly borrowed money and used the complainant’s car.
• On 08.07.2023, she visited his native village where his family refused the marriage proposal. FIR was filed 23 days later.
• The appellant denied the allegations, stating that she had pursued him, lodged a threatening call, and had attempted to coerce him into marriage.
• He obtained anticipatory bail on 23.08.2023. The Sessions Judge observed:

“The prosecutrix who is a major lady gives consent even on any of the aforesaid assumption… she will be under all circumstances and in all respect considered to be a consenting party.”

Issues

1. Whether the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process of law.
2. Whether allegations in the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence under IPC Sections 376, 377, 504, or 506.
3. Whether consent was obtained under a misconception of fact.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The FIR was registered 13 months after the alleged incidents and was delayed without justification.
• No medical evidence corroborated the allegations of rape or unnatural sex.
• The relationship was consensual between two mature adults.
• The case falls within the categories outlined in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, where proceedings should be quashed to prevent abuse of legal process.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The complainant alleged forcible sexual relations under a false promise of marriage.
• The delay in lodging the FIR was justified by the ongoing nature of the relationship and threats from the appellant’s family.
• Material on record warranted trial and could not be quashed at the threshold.

Analysis of the Law

• The Court analysed whether consent was vitiated under Section 90 IPC (consent given under misconception).
• It reiterated that a false promise to marry must be shown to be made without intention to fulfil it at the inception to attract Section 376 IPC.
• The Court distinguished a breach of promise from a false promise, relying on past precedents and legal standards of prosecutable consent.

Precedent Analysis

• Relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: especially categories 5 and 7 in paragraph 102 which permit quashing if:
  • Allegations are absurd and inherently improbable, or
  • Proceedings are mala fide and instituted to harass the accused.
• Referred to Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) SCC Online SC 89 to caution against treating every breach of promise to marry as rape.

Court’s Reasoning

• The complainant’s conduct of sustaining the relationship for over a year, visiting lodges, and maintaining cordial interactions undermines the allegations of non-consensual sex.
• Her obtaining divorce while already in a relationship contradicts her narrative that consent was based solely on a marriage promise.
• No evidence of coercion or threat under Section 506 IPC was found.
• The FIR appeared to be motivated by emotional disappointment rather than legal grievance.

“A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State.”

Conclusion

• The appeal was allowed.
• The Bombay High Court’s order dismissing the quashing petition was set aside.
• FIR No. 490/2023 and RCC No. 378/2023 were quashed.
• The appellant was discharged, and all bail bonds, if any, stood cancelled.

Implications

• Reinforces that not all failed romantic relationships involving sexual intimacy amount to rape under Section 376 IPC.
• Sets a precedent for protecting individuals from criminal proceedings where long-term consensual relationships are retrospectively labelled exploitative without credible evidence.
• Reinforces cautious judicial scrutiny against misuse of rape provisions, especially where consent and intent are ambiguous.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal by Permissive Occupant — “Admission of No Ownership Sufficient for Decree Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC”: MoU Held Unenforceable, No Trial Required, Rs. 50,000 Cost Imposed for Abuse of Process