In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India quashed a rape case filed by a woman against her former partner, holding that a breakup between consenting adults cannot be grounds for criminal prosecution. The Court, in its ruling, emphasized that consent is the cornerstone of relationships and that a consensual relationship cannot retroactively be turned into a criminal act following a breakup.
The case, Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, revolved around allegations by the complainant that the accused had engaged in a sexual relationship with her under the false promise of marriage. The accused was charged under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Delhi High Court earlier dismissed the accused’s plea for quashing the charges, prompting him to approach the apex court.
Consent Cannot Be Retrospectively Criminalized
A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh observed that the relationship between the parties was consensual from the outset. “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 Court stated.
The complainant alleged that the accused coerced her into continuing their sexual relationship by threatening her family, an accusation the Court found difficult to reconcile with the nature of their prolonged association.
Doubt Over Accusations
The Court expressed skepticism about claims that the accused forced the complainant to maintain a relationship. “It is inconceivable that the complainant would continue to meet the appellant or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with him in the absence of voluntary consent on her part,” the Bench noted.
The judgment also highlighted the improbability of the accused learning the complainant’s residential address unless it had been voluntarily disclosed.
Parties Have Moved On
In its judgment, the Court acknowledged that both the accused and the complainant had since married other people and moved on with their lives. Taking this into account, it quashed the FIR, stating, “Even if the case of prosecution is taken at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the complainant engaged in a sexual relationship with the accused solely on account of any assurance of marriage.”
