A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh stated that the mere breakup of a relationship between two consenting individuals cannot serve as grounds for criminal action against the man.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday(20th Nov) dismissed a rape case against a man, citing the woman’s prolonged association and physical relationship with him as an indication of her consent.
A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh stated that the mere breakup of a relationship between two consenting individuals cannot serve as grounds for criminal action against the man.
READ ALSO: New Criminal Laws Criticized for “Marital Rape” Exemption Clause
The Court emphasized that it was inconceivable for the complainant to maintain a prolonged relationship with the accused without her consent.
The Court further observed,
“A mere breakup of a relationship between consenting individuals cannot lead to criminal proceedings. What began as a consensual relationship cannot be deemed criminal simply because it did not culminate in marriage.”
The Bench expressed skepticism over the allegation that the accused had forcibly had sexual relations with the complainant after finding her address. The accused could not have known her address unless it had been voluntarily shared by her, the Court noted.
“It is inconceivable that the complainant would have maintained such a prolonged association or physical relationship with the appellant without voluntarily consenting,”
the Court stated, ultimately quashing the rape case against the man accused of repeatedly raping the woman under false promises of marriage.
BRIEF FACTS
In 2019, the complainant filed a First Information Report (FIR) accusing the appellant-accused of sexually abusing her under the false promise of marriage. She further alleged that the accused had threatened her to continue the sexual relationship or he would harm her family.
The accused was charged under sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Delhi High Court dismissed his plea to quash the case, ruling that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with the prosecution.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the accused approached the Supreme Court.
At the outset, the top court noted that the relationship between the parties was cordial and consensual in nature. It stated that, even assuming the prosecution’s case to be true, it could not be concluded that the complainant engaged in a sexual relationship with the accused solely due to promises of marriage.
The Court also emphasized that a mere breakup between consenting individuals cannot lead to criminal proceedings.
Acknowledging that both parties are now married and have moved on with their lives, the Court ultimately quashed the case against the accused.
Advocates Dr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Nikhil Tyagi, Atul Agarwal, Rakesh Kumar Khare, Kirti Sharma, and Amita Agarwal represented the accused, while Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, along with advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ajay Kumar Prajapati, Ayush Anand, Annirudh Sharma, and Veer Vikrant Singh appeared for NCT of Delhi.
Case Title: Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi
