The Supreme Court has discharged a Kerala resident, Santosh Kumar N P, of rape and cheating charges, holding that consensual sexual relations during an ongoing relationship cannot subsequently be treated as rape merely because the relationship has ended.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan emphasised that a distinction must be maintained between consent obtained through deliberate deception from the outset and allegations arising from regret over a relationship that later failed.
The Court observed that the criminal justice system should not be invoked against a person solely because a previously consensual relationship has broken down.
Men Have Right to Withdraw From Relationships
The bench expressed concern over the increasing number of criminal proceedings arising from failed relationships. It observed that treating the end of a consensual relationship as evidence of fraud would effectively deprive a man of the freedom to leave that relationship.
According to the Court, a man cannot be compelled to remain in a relationship merely because he fears that ending it could expose him to allegations of rape.
The judges questioned whether a man’s decision to withdraw from a relationship could, by itself, amount to deception or fraud, and answered that it could not.
The Court further observed that disappointment or regret following the breakdown of a relationship cannot, on its own, transform past consensual conduct into a criminal offence.
Rape Allegations Must Involve Genuine Absence Of Consent
The Supreme Court stressed that rape is a grave offence and that its criminal provisions must address situations involving actual sexual violence, coercion or manipulation of consent.
The bench cautioned that treating every unsuccessful consensual relationship as a case of rape risks undermining the seriousness of the offence itself.
It also noted that courts have repeatedly encountered cases in which criminal allegations emerge following the breakdown of personal relationships.
The judges clarified that the crucial distinction lies in whether consent was invalid from the beginning because of deliberate fraud or deception, rather than whether the relationship eventually survived.
Allegations Against The Accused
The proceedings arose from allegations made by a woman who claimed that Santosh Kumar N P had concealed his existing marriage before marrying her.
According to the prosecution, the woman alleged that the accused entered into a second marriage with her while his first marriage remained legally subsisting.
She claimed that he had fraudulently led her to believe that their marriage was lawful and had obtained her consent for sexual intercourse on that basis.
The woman, who had previously been divorced, alleged that the couple married in Mysore and lived together between 1996 and 2003.
She subsequently accused him of rape, cheating and breach of trust, alleging that their cohabitation had been based on a deceptive representation of a valid marriage.
Supreme Court Grants Relief
Santosh Kumar N P approached the Supreme Court after the Kerala High Court rejected his petition seeking discharge and his plea to quash the criminal proceedings.
Allowing his challenge, the Supreme Court discharged him of the charges of rape and cheating.
The bench reiterated that criminal liability cannot be imposed merely because a consensual relationship subsequently deteriorates. It maintained that cases involving consent obtained through deliberate fraud must be distinguished from those arising out of the eventual failure of a relationship.
