New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when that relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship.
A bench comprising justices BV Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh said, "The relationship between the parties was cordial and also consensual in nature. A mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings."
“What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship”, said Justice Nagarathna, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench.
The bench said both parties are now married to someone else and have moved on in their respective lives and added thus, in our view, the continuation of the prosecution in the present case would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. “Therefore, no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution”, said Justice Nagarathna. The apex court made these observations while quashing a criminal case against the man accused of repeatedly raping a woman on the false pretext of marriage.
The bench noted that the ingredients of criminal intimidation are threat to another person, inter alia, with any injury to his person, reputation with intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to any act which he is not legally bound to do. The bench said, in the instant case, the relationship between the appellant and the complainant was consensual in nature and they wanted to fructify the relationship into marriage. "It is in that context that they indulged in sexual activity. Therefore, there cannot be a case of criminal intimidation involved as against the complainant," said the bench.
"We do not find that there was any threat caused to the complainant by the appellant when all along there was cordiality between them and it was only when the appellant got married in the year 2019 that the complainant filed a complaint. In the circumstances, we do not think that the offence under Section 503 read with Section 506 of the IPC has been made out in the instant case," said the bench.
The bench said the facts as they stand, which are not in dispute, indicate that the ingredients of the offence under Sections 376 (2)(n) or 506 IPC are not established in the instant case. "The High Court erred in concluding that there was no consent on the part of the complainant and therefore she was a victim of sexual assault over a period of time and therefore, proceeded to dismiss the application under Section 482 CrPC on a completely misconceived basis," said the bench.
In September 2019, the complainant lodged an FIR, alleging that the appellant had sexually exploited her under the false promise of marriage, forcibly engaging in sexual relations with her. It was also alleged that the appellant had threatened her to keep engaging in physical relations, otherwise, he would harm her family.
The appellant moved Delhi High Court seeking to quash the FIR registered for alleged offences committed under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. His petition was dismissed by the high court.
"We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 16.10.2023 in application under Section 482 CrPC," said the apex court.
