The Supreme Court of India has quashed criminal proceedings arising from an FIR alleging rape, unnatural sex, criminal intimidation, and abuse, observing that the facts disclosed a consensual relationship rather than a case of sexual assault. The Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma held that such a relationship, even if it later deteriorates, cannot be the basis for invoking criminal law. The Court found that the case did not meet the legal threshold for offences under Sections 376(2)(n) or 506 IPC and allowed the appeal challenging the Bombay High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR.
Background
The matter stemmed from a complaint filed on 31 July 2023 at a police station in Karad, Maharashtra. The complainant, a divorced woman residing with her four-year-old child, alleged that over a 13-month period, she was repeatedly subjected to sexual acts under a false promise of marriage. The man in question, a student of agricultural sciences, was living in rented accommodation adjacent to her house.
According to the FIR, the complainant initially resisted but ultimately consented after the man promised to marry her. It was further alleged that he borrowed money from her, used her car for personal use, and committed acts of unnatural sex. The complainant stated that she visited his native village to meet his family, who opposed the marriage due to religious differences. The FIR was filed 23 days after that visit.
Proceedings Before Lower Courts
The accused obtained anticipatory bail on 23 August 2023 from the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad. In granting bail, the court observed that the prosecutrix was a mature individual and appeared to have voluntarily participated in the relationship. The judge noted:
“The prosecutrix who is major lady gives consent even on any of the aforesaid assumption and she had sexual intercourse with applicant/accused… she will be under all circumstances and in all respect considered to be a consenting party.”
Subsequently, a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR and chargesheet was filed before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 28 June 2024.
Submissions and Findings
The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that the allegations were baseless, the FIR was delayed by over a year, and the complainant continued the relationship for months after the alleged incidents. It was submitted that the case fell within the principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, especially paragraphs 102(5) and 102(7) dealing with inherently improbable allegations and mala fide prosecution.
The Supreme Court held that even assuming the allegations in the FIR to be true, the complainant’s conduct contradicted her claims. She maintained the relationship for over a year, including multiple visits to hotels with the appellant. The Court observed:
“There is also no reasonable possibility that the Complainant or any woman being married before and having a child of four years, would continue to be deceived by the Appellant or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with an individual who has sexually assaulted and exploited her.”
It was further held that there was no evidence of coercion or inducement under Section 90 IPC and that the complainant had in fact remained married during part of the period when the alleged incidents occurred. The Khulanama (divorce document) was dated 29 December 2022, whereas the relationship had already been ongoing.
The Court also reiterated a broader principle:
“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 accused of such a heinous offence.”
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out and that the criminal prosecution constituted an abuse of process. The appeal was allowed, the FIR and all proceedings arising from it were quashed, and the accused was discharged.
