Independent, educated woman having relations with married man cannot allege rape: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently held that an educated and independent woman, willingly continuing to engage in a relationship even with knowledge of the partner's marital status, cannot thereafter say that she was misled or exploited in law.

"The law governing offence of rape is intended to protect the bodily integrity and autonomy of women and to punish those who exploit them by force or by deception which vitiates free consent. It is not designed to become a tool in disputes where two consenting adults, fully aware of their choices and the attendant consequences, subsequently fall apart. Adults entering into intimate relationships must take responsibility for the decisions they voluntarily make, including the emotional, social, or legal risks inherent in such relationships," Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma has held.

With these observations, Justice Sharma quashed the FIR filed by a 24 year old from Bihar who alleged that she had been subjected to severe exploitation, physical, emotional and sexual harassment by the petitioner/accused Ankit Raj, under the false pretext of marriage, coupled with fraud and cheating.

The complainant had first met the accused in 2023 at a hotel in Patna in the presence of their respective families. At the very first meeting, a dowry demand of Rs. 1 crore had been raised. Thereafter, the accused had begun contacting the complainant frequently, portraying himself as genuine and supportive of her academic pursuits, while assuring her repeatedly of marriage. These assurances had created a foundation of trust which he later exploited. 

Later the complainant came to know that the accused had married another woman in April 2024, allegedly in consideration of dowry of Rs. 60 lakhs, without disclosing the same to her family. 

It was noted by court that the complainant was not only a major but also an educated and independent woman, pursuing higher academic goals including preparation for the UPSC examination. Court further said it cannot be held that the complainant had been compelled into a sexual relationship on the false pretext of marriage, particularly when she herself continued to meet the accused petitioner and maintain sexual relations with him even after becoming aware that he had contracted another marriage.

"This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the criminal justice system is increasingly being burdened with FIRs for commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC where allegations of sexual exploitation are levelled on the ground of false promise of marriage, often after prolonged periods of consensual relationships. Many such cases come before the Courts where the parties, being majors, have voluntarily engaged in sexual relations over a span of time, and when the relationship eventually fails – whether due to incompatibility or any other differences – allegations of rape are pressed. To permit every such failed relationship to be converted into a criminal prosecution for rape would be contrary not only to the constitutional vision of justice, but also to the very spirit and object of the law of sexual offences", the single judge bench further said.

The High Court while quashing the FIR filed against the accused petitioner observed that the role of the Court is not to sit in judgment over the morality of such relationships, nor to enforce notions of social propriety between consenting adults. 

"At the same time, the law cannot be stretched to shield a party from the foreseeable consequences of choices made consciously and repeatedly. To do so would not only trivialize the gravity of genuine cases of sexual assault but would also risk turning the solemn remedy of criminal law into an instrument of vengeance or leverage", Justice Sharma observed while noting that the present case was a clear example of such a situation, where a consensual relationship, albeit complicated, cannot be clothed with the allegation of rape merely because the relationship did not culminate in the manner one party desired.

High Court has reiterated that the role of the Court is to adjudicate a case before it, as per law and not preach as to whether such kinds of relationships are morally right or to impose social norms on consenting adults. At the same time, high court has said, the law cannot be used to protect a party from the predictable outcomes of his or her deliberate and repeated decisions. 

Case Title: Ankit Raj vs. State of NCT of Delhi