NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages and subsequent break up cannot be given a colour of criminality to prosecute the man for repeated rape and criminal intimidation.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh quashed a 2019 FIR and criminal proceedings initiated against Prashant in a Delhi court for the offences of repeated rape and criminal intimidation of a woman.
Consensual Relationships Can’t Be Criminalized After Breakups: SC
"The relationship between the parties was cordial and also consensual in nature. A mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings," the bench said.
“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 added.
The bench also pointed out both the parties are now married to someone else and have moved on in their respective lives.
"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 said.
The bench also found that the ingredients of criminal intimidation were not available in the case.
Supreme Court Quashes FIR, Highlights Misuse of Criminal Provisions
In the instant case, the relationship between the appellant and the complainant was consensual in nature and they wanted to fructify the relationship into marriage. It is in that context that they indulged in sexual activity. Therefore, there cannot be a case of criminal intimidation involved as against the complainant, the bench said.
"We do not find that there was any threat caused to the complainant by the appellant when all along there was cordiality between them and it was only when the appellant got married in the year 2019 that the complainant filed a complaint. In the circumstances, we do not think that the offence under Section 503 read with Section 506 of the IPC has been made out in the instant case," the bench said.
In the case, the court held 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.
In September 2019, the complainant lodged an FIR, alleging that the appellant had sexually exploited her under the false promise of marriage, forcibly engaging in sexual relations with her. It was also alleged that the appellant had threatened her to keep engaging in physical relations, otherwise, he would harm her family.
