The Supreme Court has dismissed a rape case, stating that a longer physical relationship without complaints or pressure for marriage shows that the relationship was consensual.
The Supreme Court has determined that a long-term physical relationship between partners, where the female partner does not demand marriage, suggests a consensual relationship rather than one based on a false promise of marriage from the male partner. The Court dismissed an FIR under Sections 376, 420, 504, and 506 of the IPC, which claimed that the Appellant had a physical relationship with the complainant under a false marriage promise. The Court found that the relationship was consensual and that there was no clear case against the Appellant for rape. Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh noted that a prolonged physical relationship without the female partner’s insistence for marriage indicates consent, not a false promise.
AOR Gunnam Venkateswara Rao represented the Appellant, while AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande represented the Respondents. The complainant, a widow, claimed she began her relationship with the Appellant in 2008. According to the Prosecution, the Appellant promised to marry her but later did not keep that promise. Their relationship lasted several years, during which the Appellant allegedly provided financial support to the complainant.
In her FIR, the complainant claimed that the Appellant had sexual relations with her under the promise of marriage. When he later refused to marry her and stopped giving her financial help, she filed an FIR accusing him of rape. The Appellant maintained that their relationship was consensual and that she knew he was married. He also argued that her claims were made only after he decided to stop providing support.
The Supreme Court noted a concerning trend where long-term consensual relationships, when they go bad, are being criminalized. The Court stated that the allegations did not meet the legal requirements for the offenses claimed and that continuing the criminal case would misuse the legal system. The Court warned that labeling such long-term relationships as criminal after a delay could have serious implications. It could allow for accusations to be made later, dragging someone into a harsh legal process. The Court emphasized the risk of misinterpreting a troubled civil relationship as a criminal matter.
The Bench observed that the end of financial support to the complainant, rather than the supposed withdrawal of the marriage promise by the Appellant, seemed to trigger the allegations after a long consensual relationship lasting about nine years. “It is hard to believe that the complainant, a mature individual with two adult children, could not see the deceptive actions of the appellant, who maintained a sexual relationship with her for so long under the pretense of marriage. Any dishonest behavior from the appellant would likely have been revealed much earlier, rather than waiting nine years. The conclusion we can draw is that there was no false promise of marriage made to the complainant by the appellant while continuing their physical relationship, which means this situation does not fall under Section 376 IPC, and thus, there was no invalidation of consent due to a misunderstanding,” the Court stated.
As a result, the Court concluded, “We believe that allowing the criminal case against the appellant to proceed under these facts, where no criminal responsibility exists, would be an abuse of the court’s process. Therefore, we are convinced that the appellant deserves the relief sought to dismiss the complaint/FIR.” Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the Appeal.
Cause Title: Mahesh Damu Khare v. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 897)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Gunnam Venkateswara Rao; Advocates Mrunal Dattatraya Buva and Dhairyashil Salunkhe Respondents: AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande
