The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said 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 marriage and a mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh quashed a 2019 FIR and criminal proceedings initiated against Prashant for the offences of repeated rape and criminal intimidation of a woman.
"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," the bench said.
In its judgment on November 20, the court held that the continuation of the prosecution in the present case would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law and no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution as both the parties had married someone else and moved on in their lives.
Allowing the man's plea, the bench said, "The High Court erred in concluding that there was no consent on the part of the complainant and therefore she was a victim of sexual assault over a period of time and therefore, proceeded to dismiss the application under Section 482 CrPC on a completely misconceived basis."
The bench, however, felt the facts of the present case are appropriate for the High Court to have exercised the power available under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of the court’s process by continuing the prosecution.
The woman claimed she came in contact the accused in 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.
She also claimed that in January 2019, the appellant found her address and had a forceful sexual relationship with her.
The bench, however, noted a bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the appellant and the complainant first came in contact in the year 2017 and established a relationship thereafter. The parties met multiple times at various places during the years 2017 and 2019, including at parks and their respective houses.
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 court said.
The court found the appellant and the complainant were in a consensual relationship. They are both educated adults.
"In our view, taking the allegations in the FIR and the chargesheet as they stand, the crucial ingredients of the offence under Section 376 (2)(n) IPC are absent...Therefore, even if the prosecution's case is accepted at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the complainant engaged in a sexual relationship with the appellant solely on account of any assurance of marriage from the appellant," the bench said.
The court again stated the relationship between the appellant and the complainant was consensual in nature. In fact, they wanted to fructify the relationship into marriage. It is in that context that they indulged in sexual activity.
"Therefore, there cannot be a case of criminal intimidation involved as against the complainant," the bench said.