The Delhi High Court has ruled that an unsuccessful romantic relationship between educated, independent adults cannot be criminalised merely on the grounds of its breakdown. The Court made the observation while quashing an FIR of rape and caste-based abuse filed by a woman against her former partner, noting that the relationship was consensual and lasted four years.
The matter arose out of an FIR filed by the prosecutrix alleging that she had been raped by her former partner under the false promise of marriage. She also claimed that the accused made a caste-based remark before allegedly forcing a physical relationship upon her, invoking provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Justice Sharma held that courts must be cautious while dealing with sexual assault allegations stemming from failed romantic relationships, especially in cases involving long-standing consensual involvement between adults.
“An educated and independent adult, upon entering into a consensual relationship, must also recognise that the law cannot be invoked to criminalise the mere failure of a relationship,” the Court stated.
The Court acknowledged that in the Indian socio-cultural context, romantic relationships are often pursued with the hope of culminating in marriage, but such expectations do not always translate into legal culpability when they do not materialise.
On reviewing the material on record, including four years of WhatsApp conversations between the parties, the Court concluded that the relationship was consensual, affectionate, and continued even after the alleged incident. The chats showed mutual respect and voluntary communication, contradicting the claim of coercion.
Regarding the allegation of a caste-based remark, the Court held:
“The verified WhatsApp chats do not reflect any caste-based abuse or conduct suggestive of the offence being motivated by the caste identity of the prosecutrix.”
The communication between the parties reflected that the petitioner addressed the prosecutrix respectfully, without any indication of caste animus or derogation.
The Court also noted the psychological complexities that may follow a breakup:
“While many individuals are able to accept the breakdown of a relationship with maturity, there may be cases where emotional distress, disappointment, or wounded feelings influence subsequent actions.”
Finding the allegations unsubstantiated and based on a consensual relationship that later failed, the Court quashed the FIR. It reiterated that a failed relationship, by itself, does not give rise to criminal liability unless there is compelling evidence to demonstrate coercion, false inducement, or unlawful conduct.
“Such matters must be approached with sensitivity, restraint, and due respect for the autonomy and choices of both individuals involved,” the Court emphasised.
