Supreme Court quashes rape FIR: Consensual Relationship Not Rape: Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2024) INSC 879

Date of the Judgment: 20 November 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 879
Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, J., Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.

Can a sexual relationship between two consenting adults be considered rape if the relationship does not lead to marriage? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately quashing a rape FIR. The Court emphasized that a consensual relationship, even if it does not result in marriage, cannot be classified as rape. This judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between consensual relationships and sexual assault. The bench comprised Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, with the opinion authored by Justice B.V. Nagarathna.

Case Background

The complainant filed an FIR on 29th September 2019, at Police Station South Rohini, Delhi, alleging offenses under Section 376(2)(n) (rape) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). She stated that she met the appellant in 2017, and they developed a relationship. They met multiple times, and in January 2019, the appellant allegedly had a forceful sexual relationship with her. She further alleged that the appellant threatened her and later refused to marry her. The complainant also gave a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), reiterating these allegations.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, aggrieved by the criminal proceedings, filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC in the High Court of Delhi, seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court dismissed the petition on 16th October 2023, stating that the allegations in the FIR and the statement under Section 164 CrPC were sufficient to constitute the alleged offenses. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, which deals with the punishment for rape, specifically when it is committed repeatedly on the same woman. It states:

“Whoever, – x x x n. commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The case also involves Section 506 of the IPC, which addresses criminal intimidation, defined under Section 503 of the IPC:

“503. Criminal intimidation. — Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.”

The Supreme Court also considered Section 482 of the CrPC, which provides the High Court with the inherent power to prevent abuse of the court’s process.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The FIR and MLC report do not disclose any cognizable offense.
• The relationship was consensual.
• The FIR was filed with ulterior motives for personal vengeance.
• There were contradictions in the FIR, MLC report, and the statement under Section 164 CrPC. For example, the FIR stated the alleged forceful sexual act occurred in January 2019, while the MLC report stated it happened one week before the report date (28 September 2019).
• The statement under Section 164 CrPC stated that the appellant used to take the complainant to his room in Chhatarpur and forcibly commit rape.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• A prima facie case has been made out.
• The statements under Section 164 CrPC are sufficient to constitute the offenses.
• Both the FIR and MLC reports indicate a physical relationship based on a false promise of marriage.
• The appellant threatened to kill the complainant’s brother if she refused a physical relationship, which led to the delayed reporting of the incident.

The innovativeness of the argument by the respondent was that the delay in reporting was due to the threat to kill the complainant’s brother.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether FIR No. 272 of 2019 dated 29.09.2019 lodged against the appellant should be quashed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 – Supreme Court of India: This case laid down the parameters for exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings.
• XXXX vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 3 SCC 496 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that when the relationship between the parties was purely consensual, and the complainant was aware of the consequences of her actions, the ingredients of the offense of rape were not made out.
• Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 – Supreme Court of India: This case clarified that for consent to be vitiated by a misconception of fact due to a promise of marriage, the promise must be false, given in bad faith, and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise must be directly related to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Punishment for rape.
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Punishment for criminal intimidation.
• Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Definition of criminal intimidation.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Inherent powers of the High Court.
• Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Recording of confessions and statements.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335*: The Court applied the parameters set in this case for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, finding that the present case met the criteria for quashing.
• XXXX vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 3 SCC 496*: The Court followed the principle that a consensual relationship does not constitute rape, reinforcing that the complainant’s awareness of the consequences of her actions negates the charge of rape.
• Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608*: The Court applied the conditions set out in this case regarding a false promise of marriage vitiating consent, finding that the promise was not false at the outset of the relationship.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consensual nature of the relationship between the appellant and the complainant. The Court emphasized that the complainant and the appellant were educated adults who had a prolonged association and physical relationship with voluntary consent. The Court also noted that the complainant continued to meet the appellant even after the alleged forceful sexual relationship. The absence of any initial promise of marriage, the fact that both parties got married to other people, and the inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements also weighed heavily in the Court’s decision.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and the relevant legal provisions. The Court emphasized that the relationship between the appellant and the complainant was consensual in nature. The Court noted that the complainant continued to meet the appellant even after the alleged forceful sexual relationship. The Court also noted that there was no evidence of a false promise of marriage at the outset of the relationship. The Court also noted that both parties got married to other people. These facts, coupled with the inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements, led the Court to conclude that the ingredients of the offences under Section 376(2)(n) and Section 506 IPC were not established.

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them based on the facts of the case. For instance, the Court considered the respondent’s argument that the physical relationship was based on a false promise of marriage but found no evidence to support this claim. The Court also considered the respondent’s argument that the delay in reporting was due to a threat to the complainant’s brother but found this argument unconvincing given the consensual nature of the relationship and the fact that the FIR was filed after the appellant’s marriage.

The Court’s decision was that the FIR and the subsequent proceedings were an abuse of the process of law. The Court emphasized that a consensual relationship, even if it does not lead to marriage, cannot be termed as rape. The Court also noted that both parties had moved on in their lives and that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose.

The reasons for the decision are:

• The relationship between the appellant and the complainant was consensual.
• There was no evidence of a false promise of marriage at the outset of the relationship.
• The complainant continued to meet the appellant even after the alleged forceful sexual relationship.
• Both parties got married to other people.
• There were inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements.

“A mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings.”

“What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship.”

“The facts of the present case are appropriate for the High Court to have exercised the power available under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the court’s process by continuing the prosecution.”

There were no majority or minority opinions in this case.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and the relevant legal provisions. The Court emphasized that the relationship between the appellant and the complainant was consensual in nature. The Court noted that the complainant continued to meet the appellant even after the alleged forceful sexual relationship. The Court also noted that there was no evidence of a false promise of marriage at the outset of the relationship. The Court also noted that both parties got married to other people. These facts, coupled with the inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements, led the Court to conclude that the ingredients of the offences under Section 376(2)(n) and Section 506 IPC were not established.

The decision has significant implications for future cases involving consensual relationships that do not lead to marriage. It emphasizes that the courts must carefully scrutinize the facts of each case to determine whether the relationship was truly consensual and whether there was any evidence of a false promise of marriage at the outset.

The judgment reinforces the principle that a consensual relationship, even if it does not result in marriage, cannot be classified as rape. It clarifies that the “consent” of a woman must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. It also emphasizes that the promise of marriage must be a false promise, given in bad faith, and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given, and that the false promise must be directly related to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.

Key Takeaways

• A consensual relationship, even if it does not lead to marriage, cannot be termed as rape.
• The “consent” of a woman must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act.
• A false promise of marriage must be given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given to vitiate consent.
• The false promise must be directly related to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.
• Courts must carefully scrutinize the facts of each case to determine whether the relationship was truly consensual.
• Inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements can be a factor in determining the credibility of the allegations.
• The High Court has the power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the court’s process by quashing criminal proceedings in appropriate cases.

This judgment is likely to have a significant impact on future cases involving consensual relationships. It will serve as a reminder to the courts to carefully scrutinize the facts of each case and to ensure that criminal proceedings are not initiated in cases where the relationship was consensual and there was no evidence of a false promise of marriage at the outset.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The FIR No.272 of 2019, the charge-sheet dated 22.11.2019, and the trial pending in the Court of ASJ, Rohini, Delhi, were quashed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a consensual relationship, even if it does not lead to marriage, cannot be termed as rape. This case reinforces the principle laid down in previous judgments that the “consent” of a woman must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act, and that a false promise of marriage must be given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given to vitiate consent. The false promise must also be directly related to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which a consensual relationship can be distinguished from rape, providing guidance for future cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, charge-sheet, and trial proceedings, emphasizing that the relationship between the appellant and the complainant was consensual and that the ingredients of the offences under Section 376(2)(n) and Section 506 IPC were not established. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between consensual relationships and sexual assault, and it provides a clear legal framework for future cases involving similar issues.