Allegations “Inherently Improbable”: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against 25-Year-Old Student

The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Bombay High Court’s order dated June 28, 2024, which had refused to quash the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The FIR, registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara, alleged that the appellant had engaged in sexual relations with the complainant under the false promise of marriage.

The complainant, a divorcee and mother of a four-year-old child, alleged that the appellant, her neighbour and a 23-year-old BSc Agriculture student, had repeatedly forced her into a sexual relationship between June 2022 and July 2023 by assuring her of marriage. She claimed he committed rape and unnatural sex at different lodges, borrowed money and used her car, only to later cut off contact and refuse to marry her due to religious differences.

The Appellant, however, denied the allegations, stating that the relationship was initiated and maintained by the complainant and that he had been harassed and threatened by her. He also pointed to a prior NCR (non-cognizable report) filed on July 24, 2023, by his father alleging threats and coercion from the complainant.

Granting relief, the Court found that the FIR was registered after a delay of nearly 13 months and noted that the complainant’s conduct, sustaining the relationship over a long period, visiting the accused at lodges, and even travelling to his hometown, contradicted the narrative of coercion and false promise.

“Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at face value, they do not suggest that the consent of the complainant was obtained under coercion or misconception,” the Court observed.

“Her conduct is not consistent with that of a victim of sexual assault," the Bench added.

Citing the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal precedent, the Court held that the case clearly fell under the category of “inherently improbable allegations” and “proceedings maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.” It also cited Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT) of Delhi, cautioning against treating every failed promise to marry as a false promise leading to rape charges.

“There is no material to substantiate inducement or misrepresentation by the appellant,” the Court said, adding that the complainant was already married at the time of the alleged promise, rendering the supposed assurance to marry “unenforceable” and “illegal” from the outset.

The Court also rejected allegations under Section 506 IPC, stating there was no evidence of threat or injury. “It is improbable that the complainant, being a mature woman with a child, would continue such a relationship with someone who had allegedly exploited her," it said.

Noting the Appellant’s young age and the long-term impact of a criminal trial, the bench ruled that allowing the case to proceed would amount to an abuse of the process of law. “In the interest of justice, the proceedings are quashed at this stage itself,” the Court concluded.

The Court opined, "This is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. 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. This Court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC."

Conclusively, the Court quashed the FIR dated July 31, 2023, the chargesheet filed on September 26, 2023, and all proceedings in RCC No. 378/2023 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad.

Accordingly, the Appellant stands discharged, and all bail bonds have been cancelled.