The Court was of the view that it was inconceivable for the girl-complainant to maintain a prolonged relationship with the accused without her consent.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court dismissed a rape case against a man, citing the girl’s long-term relationship and physical involvement with him as an indication of her consent [Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi].
A Bench consisting of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh ruled that the mere termination of a relationship between two consenting individuals does not justify criminal proceedings against the man.
The Court also observed that it was unreasonable to believe the complainant had maintained a prolonged relationship with the accused without her consent.
“A mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. 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 Court observed.
The Court expressed skepticism regarding the claim that the accused had obtained the complainant’s address and forcibly initiated a sexual relationship with her.
The Bench remarked that the accused could not have known the complainant’s address unless she had willingly provided it to him.
“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. Moreover, it would have been improbable for the appellant to ascertain the complainant’s residential address, as mentioned in the FIR unless such information had been voluntarily provided by the complainant herself,” the Court observed while quashing case against man accused of repeatedly raping a woman on the false pretext of marriage.
In 2019, the complainant filed a First Information Report (FIR), alleging that the appellant-accused had sexually assaulted her under the false pretense of marriage.
She further claimed in her complaint that the accused had threatened to harm her family if she did not continue engaging in sexual relations.
The appellant was charged under sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Delhi High Court denied his plea for quashing, finding sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with the prosecution.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the accused appealed to the Supreme Court.
At the outset, the Supreme Court noted that the relationship between the
parties was cordial and consensual. It remarked that even if the prosecution’s case were accepted at face value, it could not be concluded that the complainant engaged in a sexual relationship with the accused solely based on a promise of marriage.
The Court further clarified that the mere breakup of a relationship between consenting individuals does not provide grounds for criminal proceedings.
Acknowledging that both parties are now married and have moved on with their lives, the Court decided to quash the case against the accused.
