The Supreme Court has recently addressed the complexities surrounding consensual relationships that turn sour, particularly when they lead to accusations of rape. In a series of rulings, the court has emphasized that a consensual relationship that deteriorates, or when partners drift apart, should not be grounds for invoking criminal proceedings. The court has cautioned against misusing rape allegations in such scenarios, highlighting the potential for injustice and the burden it places on the legal system.
In a recent case, the Supreme Court quashed rape charges against a 25-year-old agriculture student, stating that a "consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State." Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the judgment, allowing the appeal of Amol Bhagwan Nehul against a Bombay High Court order. The complainant, a previously married woman, alleged that Nehul engaged in sexual relations with her on the false pretext of marriage, coercing her into physical intimacy on multiple occasions. However, the court found that the prolonged and voluntary nature of the relationship, including repeated meetings and shared outings over a year, did not support claims of coercion or deception. The court observed that the complainant's narrative did not align with her conduct.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against the misuse of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with rape. The court has stated that every breach of a promise to marry should not automatically be treated as a false promise leading to prosecution for rape. The court has also noted that prosecuting consensual relationships under the guise of failed marital promises diminishes the severity of actual sexual offenses and risks misusing the criminal process.
In another instance, the Supreme Court quashed a rape case against a former judge, asserting that consensual relationships, where a possibility of marriage exists, cannot be colored as a false pretext to marry after a fallout. The court terminated the proceedings, emphasizing that the physical relationship between the complainant and the accused was consensual. Given that the incident occurred in 2014, the court highlighted that continuing litigation would only prolong the suffering of both parties, who were now living separate lives.
Similarly, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court quashed an FIR registered against a man accused of rape and criminal intimidation, citing the delayed complaint and the long-term consensual relationship shared between the parties. The court held that no offense was made out, noting that a consensual relationship between adults, later followed by a fallout over marriage, cannot be equated with rape, especially without coercion or deception at the start of the relationship.
These rulings underscore the judiciary's concern about the increasing trend of using rape charges to settle personal scores when relationships end. The courts are vigilant against the misuse of criminal law to address what are essentially breaches of trust or failed promises in personal relationships. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have reiterated that the legal system should not be burdened with cases where consensual relationships have simply turned sour.
It is important to differentiate between genuine cases of rape, where there is a clear lack of consent or coercion, and cases where the relationship was initially consensual but later led to disagreement or disappointment. The courts have emphasized the need to examine the facts and circumstances of each case carefully to determine whether the allegations of rape are genuine or simply a result of a broken relationship.
