Supreme Court flags 'worrying trend': When love turns sour, FIRs follow

The Supreme Court highlighted a 'worrying trend' of criminalising long-term consensual relationships when they turn sour, calling for careful scrutiny to prevent misuse of criminal laws

The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed an FIR against a man accused of rape and cheating, stemming from a nine-year consensual relationship that ended acrimoniously. Highlighting a “worrying trend” of criminalising long-term consensual relationships after they turn sour, the court called for careful scrutiny of such cases to prevent misuse of criminal laws.  

 

“It is evident from the large number of cases decided by this court dealing with similar matters… There is a worrying trend that consensual relationships going on for prolonged periods, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence,” a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh observed.  

 

 

The judgment came in response to an appeal challenging a February 2018 Bombay High Court order. The high court had dismissed the man’s plea to quash an FIR filed against him in Navi Mumbai, where a woman alleged she had been sexually exploited under the false promise of marriage.  

 

The case and court’s reasoning  

 

The Supreme Court found that the nine-year duration of the relationship, marked by a lack of insistence on marriage from the complainant, strongly suggested that it was consensual.  

 

“The longer the duration of the physical relationship between partners without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual relationship rather than one based on a false promise of marriage,” the SC bench said.  

 

The court also clarified that criminal liability for a physical relationship purportedly based on a false promise of marriage could only arise if the relationship was directly traceable to such a promise and not influenced by other circumstances.  

 

“Such prolonged continuation of physical relationship without demurral or remonstration by the female partner in effect takes out the sting of criminal culpability and neutralises it,” the court said, adding that every case must be judged on its unique facts and circumstances.  

 

The bench further emphasised that the decision should be understood within the factual matrix of this case, as human relationships are complex and infused with unpredictable emotions and sensitivities.  

 

Top court’s verdict on the case 

 

The bench quashed the FIR against the accused, noting that no prima facie case of rape was made out and that continuing the proceedings would constitute an abuse of the legal process. However, it clarified that the quashing of the FIR does not prevent the complainant from pursuing any other remedies available under the law.  

 

Consent and deception defined 

The court’s observations echo earlier rulings on similar matters. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v State of Maharashtra (2019), the Supreme Court held that a false promise of marriage can lead to a charge of rape only when it is made with no intention of honouring it at the outset, and the woman agrees to the relationship solely based on that promise.  

 

Similarly, in Deepak Gulati v State of Haryana (2013), the court ruled that a consensual relationship could not be classified as rape unless there was a clear and deliberate intent to deceive by the accused.  

 

[With PTI inputs]