The Delhi High Court has clarified that a consensual relationship turning sour or a failed promise to marry cannot automatically be converted into an offence of rape under Section 376 of the IPC. The Court explained that there is a vital difference between a breach of promise and a false promise made with mala fide intent from the inception solely to obtain consent for sexual intercourse.
The Court said that an educated and independent adults who voluntarily enter into a relationship must take responsibility for their choices and the inherent risks. The law is not designed to be a tool in disputes where two consenting adults subsequently fall apart.
The High Court ruled that the sine qua non for applying Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is that the offence must have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and the offence must be motivated by the victim’s caste identity.
The Court pointed out that the present case does not disclose the commission of offences under Section 376 of the IPC or Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, since the material on record, particularly the verified WhatsApp conversations and the conduct of the prosecutrix, reflects a consensual relationship, and the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse is not prima facie supported.
Further, when the allegations of a false promise of marriage and caste-based abuse are not borne out from the record, the Court observed that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the relationship was not disputed to be four years long, and the prosecutrix’s admission of staying at the petitioner’s flat in January 2023, a fact omitted from her initial complaint, was deemed relevant in assessing the consensual nature of the relationship.
The Bench found that there was a delay of about five months between the alleged incident and the lodging of the FIR, and the medical examination revealed no injuries, though this could be attributed to the delay.
The Bench observed that the verified WhatsApp chats, whose authenticity was not disputed, showed that the prosecutrix had first expressed feelings of love in April 2020. Further, the messages exchanged the day after the alleged assault, were of a normal and casual tenor, which did not indicate any immediate distress. Further, the chats did not contain any evidence of forcible sexual assault or caste-based abuse.
Lastly, the Bench found no evidence of any promise of marriage in the WhatsApp conversations, as the exchanges indicated a consensual romantic relationship rather than one founded on a false promise. Accordingly, the Bench viewed the case as an example of a failed relationship being given a criminal colour. It noted the disquieting tendency to misuse protective legislation to settle personal disputes, which burdens the justice system and causes irreparable harm to the accused.
Briefly, a complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix, who had known the petitioner for approximately four years through a student organisation. The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner forcibly subjected her to sexual intercourse at his flat in Wazirabad. She claimed that before the act, he made a caste-related remark, stating, “Dalits are exploited, and now I will exploit you.”
The parties first met in person in 2022 when the petitioner stayed at the prosecutrix’s residence in Kolkata for two days. After the prosecutrix moved to Delhi in March 2023 for her Ph.D., they began meeting frequently. The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner persuaded her to enter a romantic relationship with the assurance of marriage after securing employment, which she said she would consider. Later, the prosecutrix alleged that after the incident, the petitioner reiterated his promise to marry her but later started avoiding her and made derogatory casteist remarks over the phone, which led to lodging of an FIR.
Accordingly, the petitioner sought the quashing of FIR, for offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Appearances:
Advocates Bajinder Singh and Subhash Choudhary, for the Petitioner
APP Manoj Pant, along with Advocates Tara Narula and Shivangi Sharma, for the Respondent
