In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 4326 of 2018), delivered on November 26, 2024, quashed an FIR lodged against appellant Mahesh Damu Khare by the complainant (Respondent No. 2) under Sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The bench, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, ruled that a decade-long consensual relationship, turning sour, cannot retrospectively be deemed non-consensual or criminal.
Background of the Case
The complainant accused Khare, a social worker, of engaging in sexual intercourse with her under false promises of marriage over a period of nine years, starting in 2008. The allegations also included financial coercion and threats. The appellant denied the allegations, contending that the relationship was consensual and allegations of rape were made only after financial assistance to the complainant ceased.
The Bombay High Court had earlier dismissed Khare’s plea for quashing the FIR, stating that the allegations warranted further investigation. Aggrieved, Khare approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
1. Consent Under Misconception of Fact: The primary issue was whether the complainant’s consent to the sexual relationship was obtained under a misconception of fact due to a false promise of marriage, rendering it invalid under Section 90 of IPC.
2. Scope of Section 482 of CrPC: Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition to quash the FIR under Section 482, which allows for intervention to prevent abuse of the process of law.
3. Assessment of Criminal Intent: Whether the appellant’s intentions constituted deceit from the inception of the relationship.
Court’s Observations and Decision
In a detailed 21-page judgment, Justice Singh authored the decision, extensively analyzing the nuances of consensual relationships and the evolving legal understanding of consent. The Court held:
1. Nature of Consent: The Court reiterated that consent must be active and informed. While false promises to marry can vitiate consent, the complainant must establish that the promise was false from the outset. The Court stated, “For a promise to marry to constitute a misconception of fact under Section 90 of IPC, it must have been made in bad faith, with no intention of being kept, at the time it was made.”
2. Long-Term Relationships: It observed that a consensual physical relationship spanning nine years, without evidence of persistent deception or immediate complaints, weakens allegations of non-consent. The Court remarked, “Prolonged consensual relationships cannot be criminalized when they turn sour.”
3. Delay in Filing the FIR: The Court noted that the complainant approached law enforcement only after the appellant ceased financial assistance, which raised doubts about the veracity of her claims.
4. Potential Misuse of Legal Provisions: Highlighting a worrying trend, the Court cautioned against the misuse of criminal law in personal disputes, stating, “Criminal law cannot become a tool for seeking vengeance in personal relationships.”
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, setting aside the Bombay High Court’s order, and underscored that continuing criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.
Counsel Representation
– Appellant: Advocate Ms. Mrunal Dattatraya Buva argued that the relationship was consensual and that the allegations were baseless, stemming from personal vendettas.
– Respondent-State: The State contended that the allegations required investigation, asserting the complainant’s claim of coercion.
