New Delhi: A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery and such conduct “not only burdens the courts but also blots the identity of accused”, the Supreme Court said on Monday.
The apex court’s observations came while quashing a criminal case against a man in July 2023 in Maharashtra for allegedly raping a woman on the false assurance of marriage.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma noted that even if allegations in the FIR were taken as true, it does not appear from the record that the complainant’s consent was obtained against her will and merely on an assurance to marry.
“In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State,” the bench said.
“Such conduct not only burdens the courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence,” it said.
The bench said the apex court has time and again warned against the misuse of provisions and has termed it a “folly” to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for the offence of rape.
The top court delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by the accused who had challenged the Bombay High Court’s June 2024 order which dismissed his plea seeking quashing of the case registered against him for alleged offences, including that of rape, in Satara.
The apex court noted the case was registered on a complaint by the woman who alleged that during June 2022 till July 2023, the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with her on the false assurance of marriage.
The accused had denied the allegations.
The bench noted after the FIR was lodged, the accused approached a trial court seeking anticipatory bail, which was granted in August 2023.
It said the accused and complainant were acquainted since June 2022 and she herself admitted that they interacted frequently and fell in love.
The bench noted the investigation had also revealed that ‘Khulanama’ was executed on December 29, 2022 which the complainant had obtained from her ex-husband.
‘Khula’ allows a Muslim woman to unilaterally divorce her husband by returning his dower.
“It is inconceivable that the complainant had engaged in a physical relationship with the appellant (accused), on the assurance of marriage, while she was already married to someone else,” the bench said.
The bench said it also cannot ignore the complainant’s conduct in visiting the native village of the accused without any intimation, which was also unacceptable and reflected the “agitated and unnerved state” of her mind.
“For the same reason, the criminal prosecution against the appellant herein is probably with an underlying motive and disgruntled state of mind,” it noted.
“There is also no reasonable possibility that the complainant/respondent no. two or any woman being married before and having a child of four years, would continue to be deceived by the appellant or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with an individual who has sexually assaulted and exploited her,” the bench said.
The top court allowed the appeal and set aside the high court’s order.
“Taking into consideration that the appellant is just 25 years of age, and has a lifetime ahead of him, it would be in the interest of justice that he does not suffer an impending trial and, therefore, the proceedings emanating from… are quashed at this stage itself,” it said.
