The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered for the offences of rape and under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, holding that the allegations arose from a consensual romantic relationship that had turned sour. The Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that a failed relationship cannot be given the colour of criminality and that the misuse of penal provisions to settle personal scores burdens the criminal justice system.
Case Background
The petitioner, Dr. Avadesh Kumar, approached the High Court seeking the quashing of FIR No. 904/2023, registered at Police Station Wazirabad, Delhi, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
The prosecutrix alleged that she had known the petitioner for about four years, having met him through a student organisation. She stated that they remained in telephonic contact and met in person in 2022 when the petitioner visited Kolkata. In March 2023, after securing admission to a Ph.D. programme, she shifted to Delhi, and their meetings became frequent.
According to the complaint, on 03.04.2023, the prosecutrix visited the petitioner’s flat for dinner, where he allegedly made caste-related remarks and forcibly established a physical relationship with her. She further alleged that the petitioner manipulated her by promising marriage and later started avoiding her. The FIR was registered on 13.09.2023, approximately five months after the alleged incident.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the Petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and voluntary, spanning from 2019 to 2023. It was submitted that the WhatsApp chats between the parties, which were verified during the investigation, showed no indication of forcible sexual exploitation or caste-based abuse. The petitioner contended that the prosecutrix had concealed material facts, including her stay at his flat for three days in January 2023.
The State and the counsel for the Respondent No. 2 (Prosecutrix) opposed the petition, arguing that the allegations were serious. They contended that the petitioner had sexually exploited the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage and had hurled caste-based slurs at her, violating her dignity and social identity.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court examined the material on record, including the nature of the relationship, the delay in lodging the FIR, medical evidence, and WhatsApp conversations.
- Consensual Nature of Relationship: The Court noted that the parties had been in contact for nearly four years and had met voluntarily. The WhatsApp chats placed on record revealed that the prosecutrix had expressed feelings of love and affection towards the petitioner as early as April 2020. The Court observed, “The exchanges, when read as a whole, indicate a consensual romantic relationship rather than one founded on a promise of marriage.”
- WhatsApp Conversations: The Court highlighted that the chats exchanged on and after the date of the alleged incident (03.04.2023) reflected normal and casual communication. The prosecutrix continued to communicate with the petitioner without any sign of immediate distress or protest. The Court noted, “The tenor of these messages does not indicate any immediate distress or protest and forms part of the surrounding circumstances to be examined by this Court.”
- Delay in FIR: The Court took note of the five-month delay in lodging the FIR. While acknowledging that delay in sexual offence cases is not always fatal, the Court stated that it assumes significance when viewed in conjunction with the continued interaction between the parties.
- Allegation of False Promise of Marriage: The Court found no material to suggest that the petitioner had made a false promise of marriage at the inception of the relationship to obtain consent. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court distinguished between a false promise and a breach of promise, stating, “The relationship between the parties evolved gradually over a period of time and was not the result of any immediate inducement or representation made by the petitioner.”
- SC/ST Act Charges: regarding the allegations under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the Court held that the offence must be committed on the ground that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The Court observed that the verified WhatsApp chats did not contain any caste-based abuse. “Mere allegation, unsupported by surrounding circumstances or contemporaneous material, is insufficient to attract the rigours of the said provision,” the Bench ruled.
Decision
The Court concluded that the case was an example of a failed relationship where the consequences of the breakdown were sought to be addressed through criminal proceedings. The Bench remarked:
“To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 904/2023 and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Dr Avadesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi and Another
- Case Number: CRL.M.C. 3/2025
- Coram: HJustice Swarana Kanta Sharma
