The Supreme Court has ruled that simply ending a relationship between two consenting individuals does not lead to criminal charges, dismissing a ‘rape case’.
The Supreme Court ruled that a consensual relationship at the beginning cannot be considered criminal if it does not lead to marriage. The Court dismissed the FIR filed under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC and overturned the Delhi High Court’s decision, which had refused to dismiss the FIR. The High Court argued that both the Appellant and the complainant were educated adults in a consensual relationship, and continuing the criminal case would misuse the legal process. Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh stated, “The relationship was friendly and consensual. A breakup between consenting individuals should not trigger criminal charges. A relationship that was consensual at first cannot be labeled criminal just because it did not lead to marriage. Additionally, both individuals are now married to others and have moved on. Therefore, continuing this prosecution would be a serious misuse of the legal system. It serves no purpose to keep the case going.”
Sunil Kumar Agarwal represented the Appellant, while Vikramjeet Banerjee appeared for the Respondent. The complainant filed an FIR claiming that the Appellant had coerced her into a physical relationship several times. She stated that they first connected in 2017, and in 2019, he forced her into a sexual relationship. She accused him of repeatedly pressuring her and later refusing to marry her. Upset by this, the Appellant sought to have the FIR dismissed under Section 482 of the CrPC in the High Court. However, the High Court rejected the petition, stating that the FIR’s allegations and the complainant’s account were enough to support charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court observed that the complainant continued to see the Appellant and had a long-term relationship with him without her voluntary consent. The Court noted that it would have been unlikely for the Appellant to know the complainant’s address unless she had shared it willingly. It also pointed out that both parties had once considered marriage, although it did not happen. Citing its previous ruling in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), the Court emphasized that “consent” requires a thoughtful decision, and a consensual relationship cannot be later labeled as rape just because it ended.
Cause Title: Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 879)
