New Delhi, May 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed rape and allied charges against a 25-year-old Agriculture student, observing that a consensual relationship that later turns sour or distant cannot be a valid basis for initiating criminal proceedings under rape laws.
A division bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the appeal filed by Amol Bhagwan Nehul, setting aside a Bombay High Court order that had refused to quash an FIR registered under Sections 376, (rape) 376(2) (n), 377, 504 (threat) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The complainant, a woman who was previously married and residing with her child, alleged that the appellant had engaged in sexual relations with her on the false promise of marriage. She claimed that he coerced her into repeated sexual encounters between 2022 and 2023 at her residence, restaurants and hotels.
The apex court, however, found that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, indicated a prolonged and voluntary relationship.
The Court noted that the complainant’s version lacked consistency with her conduct and pointed out that the duo had continued to meet and maintain intimacy over a long period.
The bench stated, “A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State.”
The Court also observed, “Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence.”
Emphasising the need to guard against misuse of rape provisions, the Court reiterated that not every breach of promise to marry amounts to rape, and criminal prosecution under Section 376 IPC requires clear evidence of deception, coercion, or force which was lacking in the present case.
It further noted that the complainant had continued the relationship while still legally married, and no threats or force had been substantiated to invoke the rigorous provisions under rape law.
The Court invoked the principles laid down in State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would be a misuse of the process of law.
It also took into account the young age of the appellant and the long-term consequences an unjust trial could have on his future.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the Bombay High Court’s order was set aside, and all proceedings arising out of the FIR, filed in July 2023, were quashed.
The Court also directed the cancellation of any bail bonds furnished in the case.
UNI SNG SS