Failed Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Retrospectively Criminalised as Rape: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has reiterated a crucial principle governing criminal prosecutions arising out of intimate relationships, holding that a failed consensual relationship between two adults cannot be retrospectively converted into a criminal case of rape merely because the relationship did not culminate in marriage. The Court quashed an FIR registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, observing that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, examined the factual matrix and found that the allegations stemmed from a long-standing consensual relationship between two educated and independent adults. The Court emphasised that romantic relationships, by their very nature, involve uncertainties and cannot be presumed to inevitably or assuredly lead to marriage.
The Court observed that while the emotional fallout of a failed relationship may cause distress, disappointment, or wounded feelings, criminal law cannot be invoked as a mechanism to address personal grievances arising from such breakdowns. It was noted that courts must exercise caution and discernment, particularly where the material on record indicates voluntary intimacy and mutual participation.
In the present case, the complainant alleged that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her on the false promise of marriage and had made caste-based remarks. The FIR was registered nearly five months after the alleged incident, and a chargesheet was subsequently filed. Upon scrutiny of the record, including verified WhatsApp conversations, the Court found that the parties had known each other for nearly four years and had remained in consistent communication since 2019. The exchanges revealed mutual affection, voluntary interaction, and continued communication even after the date of the alleged incident.
Significantly, the Court noted that the tenor of the conversations did not disclose coercion, protest, or immediate distress. It also took into account that the complainant had stayed with the petitioner on earlier occasions, a fact admitted in her statement under Section 164 CrPC but not disclosed in the initial complaint. The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with continued interaction between the parties, was held to be relevant in assessing the true nature of the allegations.
On the allegation of a false promise of marriage, the Court found no material to suggest that any promise was made at the inception of the relationship with a dishonest or fraudulent intent. The chats did not indicate any assurance of marriage nor did they demonstrate that consent for physical intimacy was obtained on that basis. Reiterating settled law, the Court held that not every breach of expectation or failed relationship can be criminalised as rape.
With respect to the offences alleged under the SC/ST Act, 1989, the Court held that the essential statutory requirement—that the offence must have been committed on the ground that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste—was not satisfied. The verified conversations did not reveal any caste-based abuse, and the surrounding circumstances did not support the allegation that the alleged acts, if any, were motivated by caste identity.
The Court further cautioned against the growing tendency to impart criminal colour to personal disputes arising from failed relationships. It observed that misuse of serious penal provisions not only undermines the purpose of protective legislation but also causes grave prejudice to individuals subjected to unwarranted criminal prosecution.
Accordingly, holding that the material on record clearly ruled out the commission of the alleged offences and that allowing the trial to proceed would result in injustice, the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.