NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said a consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State for the offence of rape.
It said such conduct not only burdens the courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence.
In a judgment on May 26, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said, this court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC.
The court allowed a plea by Amol Bhagwan Nehul, a BSc student, for quashing a criminal case for allegedly committing rape upon a woman, previously married, on the promise of marriage.
The Bombay High Court has on June 28, 2024 declined his plea.
After examining the matter, the bench said, "In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with."
The bench said even if the allegations in the FIR are taken as a true and correct depiction of circumstances, 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.
The court noted the appellant and the complainant were acquainted since June 08, 2022, and she herself admitted that they interacted frequently and fell in love.
"The complainant engaged in a physical relationship alleging that the appellant had done so without her consent, however she not only sustained her relationship for over 12 months, but continued to visit him in lodges on two separate occasions. The narrative of the complainant does not corroborate with her conduct," Justice Sharma wrote in the 13-page judgment for the bench.
The court also said it is inconceivable that the complainant had engaged in a physical relationship with the appellant, on the assurance of marriage, while she was already married to someone else. Even otherwise, such a promise to begin with was illegal and unenforceable qua the appellant, the court said.
The court also felt it is improbable that there was any threat caused to the complainant by the appellant when all along the relationship was cordial, and it was only when he graduated and left for his hometown to Ahmednagar, the complainant became agitated.
"We also cannot ignore the conduct of the complainant in visiting the native village of the appellant without any intimation, which is also unacceptable and reflects the agitated and unnerved state of mind. For the same reason, the criminal prosecution against the appellant herein is probably with an underlying motive and disgruntled state of mind," the bench said.
The FIR was lodged on July 31, 2023 at Police Station Karad Taluka, District Satara was registered at the behest of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging that during the period June 08, 2022 till July 08, 2023, the appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her on the false assurance of marriage.
The complainant had been previously married. She had obtained Khulanama from her ex-husband and had been residing with her 4-year-old son at her parental home in Kalegaon, Karkad since 2021.
The appellant, a 23-year-old student of Bachelor of Science (Agriculture) was residing as a tenant next door, with three other men since May 25, 2022.
In July 2022, the appellant had allegedly entered the house of the complainant at night, and said that once she obtained divorce from her husband, he would instantly marry her and on this pretext had sexual intercourse with her, despite her denial.
