New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday flagged the "worrying trend" where consensual relationships going on for prolonged periods, upon turning sour have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence. A bench comprising justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh quashed an FIR registered against a man for alleged offences of rape and cheating, after noting that the relationship continued for nine long years in the case.
“In our view if criminality is to be attached to such prolonged physical relationship at a very belated stage, it can lead to serious consequences”, said Justice Singh, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench. Justice Singh said it will open the scope for imputing criminality to such long-term relationships after turning sour, as such an allegation can be made even at a belated stage to drag a person in the juggernaut of stringent criminal process. He stressed that there is always a danger of attributing criminal intent to an otherwise disturbed civil relationship of which the court must also be mindful.
"It is evident from the large number of cases decided by this court dealing with similar matters as discussed above that there is a worrying trend that consensual relationships going on for prolonged periods, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence," said Justice Singh.
The bench said the longer the duration of the physical relationship between the partners without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on false promise of marriage by the male partner and thus, based on misconception of fact.
The bench said even if it is assumed that a false promise of marriage was made to the complainant initially by the appellant, even though no such cogent evidence has been brought on record before us to that effect, the fact that the relationship continued for nine long years, would render the plea of the complainant that her consent for all these years was under misconception of fact that the appellant would marry her implausible.
“The criminal liability attached to such false promises would be diluted after such a long passage of time and in light of the fact that no protest was registered by the complainant during all those years. Such a prolonged continuation of physical relationship without demurral or remonstration by the female partner, in effect takes out the sting of criminal culpability and neutralises it”, said the bench.
The apex court delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by a man, who assailed an order passed by Bombay High Court in 2018. The high court had dismissed his plea seeking quashing of an FIR lodged against him at Navi Mumbai. The complainant alleged that the man had repeatedly exploited her sexually on pretext of a false promise of marriage.
The bench said it will be very difficult to assume that the complainant who is otherwise a mature person with two grown up children, was unable to discover the deceitful behaviour of the appellant who continued to have sexual relationship with her for such a long period on the promise of marriage. “Any such mendacious act of the appellant would have been exposed sooner without having to wait for nine years”, said the bench.
“Furthermore, it appears that discontinuance of financial support to the complainant, rather than the alleged resiling from the promise to marry by the appellant appears to be the triggering point for making the allegation by the complainant after a long consensual relationship for about nine years”, said the bench.
The apex court set aside the High Court order and made it clear that quashing the FIR would not be bar on the complainant to seek any other remedy available under the law. "In our opinion, allowing the criminal proceeding against the appellant in the facts and circumstances to continue, where no criminal liability can be attached, would amount to abuse of the process of court. Therefore, under the circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant is entitled to the relief claimed for quashing the complaint/ FIR", said the bench.
