Read Time: 07 minutes
At one point, both parties had an intention to marry each other, though this plan ultimately did not materialise, the court has noted while quashing a rape case
The Supreme Court has said a mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. With this view court has quashed a rape case lodged by a woman against a man after their relationship did not result into marriage.
"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," a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh has said.
The court also noted both the parties had married someone else and have moved on in their respective lives.
"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," the bench said.
An appeal was filed by Prashant before the top court against the Delhi High Court's order of October 16, 2023 which declined to quash the FIR lodged by the woman, then working in a call centre, on September 29, 2019 with Police Station South Rohini, Delhi under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellant came in contact with the complainant in the year 2017 and they had a conversation on call and got to know each other. They first met in November 2017 and again in April 2018 at a park.
The complainant further stated that in January 2019, the appellant found her address and had a forceful sexual relationship with her. It was further stated that the appellant used to threaten the complainant to have forceful sexual relationship with her. However, the appellant later denied to marry the complainant by giving excuses. Further, the appellant also refused that the complainant should meet his parents.
High Court noted that the alleged relationship between the parties was not the outcome of consent on the part of the complainant and that allegations made in the FIR and in the statement made under Section 164 CrPC were sufficient to constitute alleged offences against the appellant.
The appellant's counsel submitted that the contents of the FIR and MLC report did not disclose any cognizable offence. The parties were in a consensual relationship. The institution of the FIR was with the ulterior motive of retribution due to a personal vengeance.
Supreme Court's bench noted a bare perusal of the FIR revealed that the appellant and the complainant first came in contact in the year 2017 and established a relationship thereafter. Although the complainant stated that the appellant had a forceful sexual relationship with her, neither did she stop meeting the appellant thereafter, nor did she file a criminal complaint during the said period, the bench said.
"It is inconceivable that the complainant would continue to meet the appellant or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with him in the absence of voluntary consent on her part. Moreover, it would have been improbable for the appellant to ascertain the complainant's residential address, as mentioned in the FIR unless such information had been voluntarily provided by the complainant herself," the bench further opined.
Court accordingly quashed the FIR and the criminal proceedings in the case.
Please Login or Register
