India Supreme Court has expressed deep apprehension over the trend in increasingly criminalizing consensual relationship after its termination. In this regard, the remark was made while quashing a rape FIR against an accused who had been a lady friend of the complainant for nearly a decade. The bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh observed that use of criminal law in such contexts “makes serious inroads into the affairs of personal relationships”.
Important Observations by the Court
The Court observed that it has dealt with many cases where consensual relationships, which have turned sour later, have resulted in false complaints of rape under the pretext of marriage. Justice Nagarathna observed, “It is clear from the significant number of cases this Court. that there is an alarming trend that consensual relationships going on for long durations, when turning sour, have been attempted to be criminalized” 13. The judges warned that criminalizing such relationships at the later stage could lead to severe consequences wherein the individuals are dragged into the long court battles without a reason.
Case Facts
In the present case, appellant has filed an appeal against an order of dismissal of the application for quashing the FIR, which was filed for offences under various sections of the IPC, including rape and cheating. The complainant stated that their long time relationship was based on a promise of marriage, which was also not honoured. However, she said that she only started making allegations since the appellant had stopped giving her financial assistance.
The Court considered it unlikely that the complainant could have continued to live with a man for nine years based on only a promise of marriage without making any protest or complaint in those nine years. Justice Kotiswar Singh observed that there was no consistent objection from the complainant which would go to show mutual consent and not coercion 24.
Legal Implications
The Supreme Court had ruled that in order to successfully make a claim under vitiated consent by way of misapprehension of fact, it has to show that the physical relationship came to be on the premise and basis of promise of marriage alone. The judges ruled “A woman may have reasons for the physical relationship other than the promise of marriage.”. Therefore, it cannot be held that the above said physical relationship was due to the alleged promise of the Appellant” 56.
The present judgment reveals a general judicial approach to protect individuals from potential misuse of criminal law in personal affairs. The decision of the Court is clear in the sense that break-ups of consensual relationships should not, per se, result in criminal trials.
The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores a critical intersection between personal relationships and legal frameworks, advocating caution against the misuse of criminal law in matters stemming from personal disputes. As societal norms evolve, this judgment may set important precedents regarding consent and criminal liability in intimate relationships.
