Mere breakup of relationship can’t result in lodging of criminal cases: SC-OxBig News Network

Holding that a mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in lodging of criminal cases, the Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed a rape case filed against a Delhi man who refused to marry a woman he used to date.

“The relationship between the parties was cordial and also consensual in nature. 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,” a Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh said.

Noting that both parties were now married to someone else and had moved on in their respective lives, the Bench said, “Thus, in our view, the continuation of the prosecution in the present case would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution.”

The woman had filed an FIR in September 2019 against the man accusing him of sexually exploiting her under the false promise of marriage, forcibly engaging in sex and threatening her to keep engaging in physical relations, else he would harm her family.

“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. It is also revealed that, at one point, both parties had an intention to marry each other, though this plan ultimately did not materialize. The appellant and the complainant were in a consensual relationship. They are both educated adults,” the court said.

The top court said, that “the facts as they stand, which are not in dispute, indicate that the ingredients of the offence under Sections 376 (2)(n) (committing rape repeatedly on the same woman) or 506 IPC (criminal intimidation) are not established in the instant case. The High Court erred in concluding that there was no consent on the part of the complainant 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 a completely misconceived basis.”