The Supreme Court expressed concern over the misuse of criminal law in consensual relationships that turn sour, specifically regarding false rape allegations tied to unfulfilled marriage promises. A bench quashed an FIR involving a decade-long mutual relationship, emphasizing that allegations must not stem from mere ended financial support and must distinguish between civil disputes and criminal offenses.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has raised concerns over the growing practice of invoking criminal law against men after consensual relationships sour, often citing allegations of rape on the pretext of false promises of marriage. This observation came while a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh quashed an FIR against a man accused of rape and other charges in a decade-long consensual relationship.
The Court noted:
“It is evident from the large number of cases decided by this Court dealing with similar matters… there is a worrying trend that consensual relationships going on for prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalized by invoking criminal jurisprudence.”
Highlighting the potential repercussions, the bench added:
“If criminality is to be attached to such prolonged physical relationships at a very belated stage, it can lead to serious consequences. It will open the scope for imputing criminality… as such an allegation can be made even at a belated stage to drag a person in the juggernaut of stringent criminal process.”
The appeal challenged the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of a petition to quash the FIR under Sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The complainant accused the appellant of engaging in a sexual relationship under the false pretext of marriage, spanning almost a decade.
The appellant contended that the relationship was consensual and that the allegations surfaced only after he discontinued financial assistance to the complainant. The Court rejected claims of forceful intercourse, stating the relationship indicated mutual consent.
The judgment authored by Justice N. Kotiswar Singh emphasized:
- “Discontinuance of financial support… rather than the alleged resiling from the promise to marry, appears to be the triggering point for making the allegation after a long consensual relationship.”
- “In cases of prolonged relationships, unless the physical relationship is directly traceable to a false promise of marriage, criminal liability cannot be established.”
Addressing the complainant’s argument of consent under misconception, the Court clarified:
“A woman may have reasons to have physical relationships other than the promise of marriage… Thus, unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage, it cannot be said there was vitiation of consent under misconception of fact.”
The Court highlighted the importance of distinguishing civil disputes from criminal allegations, warning against the misuse of criminal law in cases involving failed relationships.
- No evidence supported the allegations under Sections 376, 420, 504, or 506 IPC.
- The FIR lacked prima facie grounds for rape or cheating.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the FIR and emphasizing that prolonged consensual relationships turning sour must not automatically lead to criminal proceedings.
This case underscores the judiciary’s vigilance in preventing the misuse of criminal law in matters of failed relationships, reiterating the importance of distinguishing between civil disputes and genuine criminal acts. “Criminal law must not become a tool for settling personal scores,” the judgment implicitly reminds.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
