The Supreme Court criticized an ex-girlfriend who accused her former partner of rape after the break up. The Court held that anger arising from a consensual relationship or distance causing hurt feelings cannot be the basis of starting a criminal process, which “adds to the burden of the justice system, and it could impugn the reputation of the accused”. The Court stated that the records do not support that the man only promised to marry her, and then went on to have physical relations with the woman without her consent, especially since she was married to another man.
The Supreme Court made this observation while quashing a criminal case filed in Maharashtra in July 2023 against a man who was accused of raping a woman under the pretext of a “false promise of marriage.” A bench of justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that, notwithstanding the allegations in the FIR, when taken at their face and literal value, the documents do not lend support to the position that the complainant’s consent was obtained against her will, based solely on a promise of marriage.
The bench said, “In our view, this is not a case where a false promise of marriage was made at the outset. Bitterness in a consensual relationship or growing distance between partners cannot be grounds for initiating criminal proceedings.” The Supreme Court further remarked, “Such conduct not only burdens the courts but also tarnishes the reputation of a person accused of a heinous crime.”
The bench observed that the Supreme Court has consistently warned against the misuse of legal provisions, and has stated that treating every breach of a promise to marry as false promise followed by a rape complaint is imprudent. The Court rendered its verdict on an appeal from the accused, who was challenging an order of the Bombay High Court from June 2024. The High Court dismissed his application to quash the charge against him for rape and related offenses, filed against him in Satara.
The Court observed that the case stemmed from a complaint by the woman, who alleged that during the time from June 2022 to July 2023, the accused had sexual relations with her through force under the pretext of false promise of marriage. The accused refuted the allegations. The bench observed that after the FIR was filed, the accused approached the lower court for anticipatory bail which was granted in August, 2023.
The Supreme Court stated that the accused and complainant had known each other since June 2022 and she herself said they communicated frequently and then fell in love. The bench observed, “It is not believable that the complainant had physical relations with the appellant (accused) solely based on a promise of marriage, especially when the woman was already married to someone else.”
The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order. The bench stated, “Considering that the appellant is only 25 years old, it would be in the interest of justice that he does not have to face an impending trial, and therefore, the proceedings are quashed.”
Also Read: Here Are The 5 Game-Changing Expressways That Define Nitin Gadkari’s Legacy As India’s ‘Highway Man’
