New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed an FIR and criminal proceedings against a Chhattisgarh-based advocate accused of repeatedly raping a woman on the false promise of marriage, holding that the case arose out of a consensual relationship between two adults, which later turned acrimonious.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan held that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and accordingly set aside the Chhattisgarh High Court order refusing to quash an FIR lodged under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC.
The FIR was registered on the complaint of a woman advocate who alleged that the appellant had repeatedly raped her on the false promise of marriage.
After examining the material on record, the apex court held that “the facts of the present case unmistakably indicate towards a classic case of a consensual relationship turning acrimonious”.
In its judgment, the Justice Nagarathna-led Bench observed that the complainant was a married woman with a ten-year-old child and divorce proceedings were still pending at the relevant time.
“By no stretch of imagination can it be held that the complainant was eligible for being married with the accused-appellant on 18.09.2022,” the apex court observed, adding that marriage during the subsistence of an earlier marriage is barred under the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.
“The law prohibits bigamous unions and therefore disallows parties from entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of their first marriage,” the judgment said.
The Supreme Court held that the complainant, being a 33-year-old advocate, could not be considered “a naïve or gullible woman incapable of taking decisions for herself”.
“It is difficult to accept the view that the complainant, who herself is an advocate, was oblivious to the said settled position of law and hence was duped and induced by the accused-appellant into having sexual relations with him on different occasions on the pretext of marriage,” the apex court held.
Referring to its earlier rulings, the Supreme Court reiterated that not every breach of a promise to marry amounts to rape and that courts must clearly distinguish genuine cases of sexual violence from disputes arising out of failed consensual relationships.
“A mere break-up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in the initiation of criminal proceedings,” the bench said, cautioning against a “disquieting tendency wherein failed or broken relationships are given the colour of criminality”.
Terming the continuation of the prosecution an abuse of the criminal justice process, the top court held that the ingredients of Section 376(2)(n) IPC were not made out even if the allegations were taken at face value.
“The facts of the present case clearly indicate a consensual relationship gone sour,” it said, adding that both parties “should have refrained from involving the state into their personal relationship turning rancorous”.
Quashing the FIR, the charge sheet and the pending sessions case, the Supreme Court concluded that it was “neither expedient nor in the interest of justice” to allow the prosecution to continue.
(IANS)
