The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a consensual relationship that subsequently turns sour or results in estrangement cannot be a basis for initiating criminal prosecution under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The ruling came in a criminal revision petition challenging the framing of rape charges by a trial court. The decision was rendered by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha.
Background
The criminal revision was filed against an order dated 03.07.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No. 37/2021. In the said order, charges under Section 376 IPC were framed based on a complaint lodged by a woman who alleged that she had been subjected to sexual abuse under the false promise of marriage.
According to the FIR lodged on 03.03.2020, the complainant alleged that she had been in a physical relationship with the accused since 2008. The allegations stated that the accused rented a house for her, promised marriage, and cohabited with her. The complainant claimed that he failed to fulfil the promise of marriage and abandoned her in 2019.
After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 22.10.2020 under Section 376 IPC, leading to the framing of charges by the trial court on 03.07.2021.
Arguments by the Petitioner
The revision petitioner contended that the relationship between the parties was consensual and long-standing. It was argued that both individuals were married and that the complainant had been cohabiting with the petitioner as husband and wife. Reference was made to multiple documents, including voter ID cards, ration cards, and Aadhar card, where the complainant had described herself as the wife of the petitioner.
Further, it was submitted that the complaint was lodged after a gap of several years of cohabitation, and prior statements made by the complainant—including a complaint to the Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Department and representations before the Raipur Development Authority—corroborated the existence of a consensual relationship.
Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments, including XXXX vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 3431 of 2023), Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra (SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024), and Vinod Kumar vs. State of Kerala (2014) 5 SCC 678, to argue that consensual physical relationships cannot be retroactively criminalized on the basis of a later dispute or breakdown of the relationship.
Observations of the High Court
The High Court examined the facts and documentary evidence and found that both the complainant and the accused were married individuals. It observed that:
“The complainant/victim had been residing with the applicant as husband and wife with her own consent and was involved in a consensual physical relationship with him.”
The Court further noted that the complainant had changed her husband’s name to that of the applicant across several government identification documents, including Aadhar card, ration card, and voter ID, reflecting that the cohabitation was voluntary and not the result of deception.
Quoting the Supreme Court, the Court reiterated:
“A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual of such a heinous offence.”
The Court also cited the guiding principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly where criminal proceedings appear to be initiated with mala fide intent or under inherently improbable allegations.
Decision
Based on the material available on record and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court concluded that the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC were not satisfied in the present case.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal revision petition and set aside the order dated 03.07.2021 framing charges under Section 376 IPC.
“I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for interference,” the Chief Justice stated while allowing the petition.
The matter was remanded back to the trial court for necessary compliance in accordance with law.
