Noting that the non-materialization of a consensual relationship in marriage cannot be given a criminal color, the Supreme Court today quashed a criminal case against the man accused of repeatedly raping a woman under the false pretext of marriage.

“a simple breakup of a relationship between a consensual couple cannot lead to the initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties in the initial stages cannot be given a color of criminality when the said relationship does not turn into a conjugal relationship.”bank including Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh said.

The complainant lodged an FIR in September 2019, alleging that the appellant sexually exploited her under the false promise of marriage by forcibly having sexual relations with her. She also stated that the appellant threatened her that she would continue to engage in physical relations, otherwise, she would harm her family.

The appellant approached the Delhi High Court to quash the FIR registered for alleged offenses under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The High Court dismissed the application, stating that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with the case.

The Court found the applicant’s allegations unbelievable. He held that he continued to meet the appellant even after the alleged forced sexual encounters, which indicated that the relationship was consensual. The parties were also educated adults.

There was no indication that the relationship began with a promise of marriage.

“A perusal of the FIR and the statement of the complainant under Section 164 CrPC does not reveal any indication that any promise of marriage was extended at the beginning of their relationship in 2017. Therefore, even if the prosecution’s case is accepted at face value, it cannot be a concluded that the applicant engaged in a sexual relationship with the appellant only because of any assurance of marriage by the appellant. The relationship between the parties was cordial and also consensual in nature.”the court observed.

“As demonstrated in the above analysis, the facts as they stand, which are not in dispute, indicate that the ingredients of the offense under Sections 376 (2)(n) or 506 IPC are not established in the present case. The High Court erred in concluding that there was no consent of the applicant 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 the basis completely wrong. The facts of the present case are proper for the High Court to have exercised the power available under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process of the court by continuing the prosecution.”the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the pending FIR was quashed.

Appearance:

For the petitioner(s) Dr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, AOR Mr. Nikhil Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Atul Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khare, Adv. Ms. Kirti Sharma, Adv. Ms. Amita Agarwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Ajay Kumar Prajapati, Adv. Mr. Ayush Anand, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma II, Adv. Mr. Veer Vikrant Singh, Adv.

Case Title: PRASHANT VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Reference: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 904

Click here to read/download the decision

Related report: ‘Lived as husband and wife for 5 years’: Supreme Court overturns case of alleged rape based on false promise of marriage