Calling Failed Relationships Rape Trivialises the Offence: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has reiterated an important legal and societal principle: not every failed or emotionally strained relationship can be criminalised as rape. In a significant judgment, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan quashed an FIR and charge sheet accusing a Maharashtra-based lawyer of rape and criminal intimidation, holding that the case involved a consensual long-term relationship which later turned bitter.

This article examines the factual background, the Court’s reasoning, the legal provisions involved, and the judicial precedents that shaped this landmark ruling.

---

Factual Background of the Case

A woman had initially approached the lawyer for assistance in a maintenance case. Over time, the two entered into a long-term intimate relationship spanning nearly three years. The relationship later deteriorated.

Subsequently, the woman filed an FIR alleging:

• Rape under Section 376 IPC

• Repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC

• Criminal intimidation under Section 507 IPC

The Bombay High Court, observing that a charge sheet had already been filed, refused to quash the proceedings and held that a full trial was necessary.

The accused approached the Supreme Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the FIR.

---

Supreme Court’s Observations: Misuse of Criminal Justice Machinery

The Court strongly cautioned against the misuse of rape provisions in cases arising out of failed or acrimonious relationships.

Key observations included:

• The offence of rape is “of the gravest kind” and must be invoked only where genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent exists.

• Converting every sour or broken relationship into a rape case trivialises the seriousness of the offence.

• Such allegations, when false or exaggerated, can inflict “indelible stigma and grave injustice” on the accused.

• Misuse of criminal law in such contexts is a matter of profound concern.

---

Findings on Consent: A Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Retrospectively Criminalised

The Court’s analysis of the FIR and evidence revealed:

• The woman was a major, educated individual, capable of making autonomous decisions.

• She voluntarily maintained contact, frequently met the lawyer, and remained emotionally connected for three years.

• No material showed coercion, fraud, force, misrepresentation, or exploitation.

The bench noted:

• Physical intimacy during a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively labelled rape merely because the relationship failed to result in marriage.

• This was not a case where the accused lured the woman solely for sexual exploitation and disappeared.

• The woman was married at the time, further undermining the claim of coercion based on the promise of marriage.

---

Court Rejects the Argument of Fiduciary Relationship

The High Court had held that the lawyer-client relationship had a fiduciary dimension, making a trial necessary. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating:

• There was no evidence of the accused leveraging his professional position for sexual favours.

• The relationship evolved beyond the professional sphere voluntarily.

---

Legal Provisions Involved

1. Section 376 IPC – Rape

Covers sexual intercourse without free consent.
The Court held that nothing indicated lack of consent.

2. Section 376(2)(n) IPC – Repeated Rape

Applies to repeated sexual assault without consent.
The Court found no basis for invoking this aggravated offence.

3. Section 507 IPC – Criminal Intimidation

The FIR lacked credible allegations of threats.

4. Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers of High Courts

The Supreme Court exercised powers analogous to those under Section 482 to quash the FIR and prevent abuse of process.

---

Judicial Precedents Relied Upon

The judgment aligns with consistent jurisprudence where courts have differentiated between:

• Consent obtained through deception (which may vitiate consent)
  and

• A genuine relationship which later breaks down

Key precedents:

1. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019)

Supreme Court held that consent is vitiated only when a promise of marriage is made in bad faith solely to obtain sexual favours.

2. Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013)

The Court clarified that failure to marry, by itself, does not constitute rape unless the promise was false at inception.

3. Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003)

Held that consent by a woman in a long-term relationship where both parties were emotionally attached cannot be termed rape merely because marriage did not occur.

4. Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2018)

Consent arising out of an ongoing relationship cannot be equated with rape unless deception or coercion is proven.

The Supreme Court in the present case relied on the above principles to hold that the FIR was an abuse of criminal law.

---

Context: Consent, Promises of Marriage, and Judicial Sensitivity

The Court acknowledged that in Indian society, women often consent to relationships based on assurances of marriage. In such cases:

• If the promise was false from the beginning and intended to exploit, consent is vitiated.

• However, in the present case, no such evidence existed.

The bench stressed that courts must be sensitive to both:

• Protecting women from exploitation, and

• Preventing misuse of rape laws which harms genuine victims and wrongly accuses innocent individuals.

---

Final Decision: FIR and Charge Sheet Quashed

The Supreme Court held:

• The case was a “classic instance of a consensual relationship” that later became acrimonious.

• No ingredients of Section 376 or Section 376(2)(n) were satisfied.

• Continuing criminal proceedings would be unjust.

The bench also appreciated the assistance of advocate Radhika Gautam, who acted as amicus curiae.

---

Statutes and Constitutional Provisions Relevant to the Case

Indian Penal Code (IPC)

• Section 375: Definition of rape

• Section 376: Punishment for rape

• Section 376(2)(n): Repeated rape

• Section 507: Criminal intimidation

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

• Section 482: Inherent powers to prevent misuse of legal process

Constitutional Provisions

While the case primarily falls within criminal law, constitutional protections include:

• Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty

• Article 14: Equality before law

• Article 20(3): Protection from self-incrimination

• Article 142 (implicitly): Supreme Court’s power to do complete justice in quashing proceedings

These constitutional principles underpin the Court’s emphasis on fairness, liberty, and preventing unjust prosecution.

---

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment is a critical reaffirmation that criminal law, especially the grave offence of rape, must not be weaponised in the aftermath of failed relationships. The ruling seeks to protect both the sanctity of genuine rape prosecutions and the personal liberty of individuals wrongly accused due to emotional fallout.

This decision serves as a reminder that the law must be invoked responsibly, with courts ensuring that allegations are supported by credible evidence, not moral conjecture.

---