In a judgment addressing a “worrying trend,” the Supreme Court of India has clarified that prolonged consensual relationships cannot be criminalized merely on the grounds of unfulfilled promises of marriage, particularly when there is no protest or insistence on marriage by the female partner during the relationship. The ruling came in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and Another, wherein the apex court quashed allegations of rape, cheating, and criminal intimidation against the accused.
A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh expressed concern over the increasing number of cases where consensual relationships, when they turn sour, are sought to be criminalized.
“It is evident from the large number of cases decided by this Court dealing with similar matters that there is a worrying trend that consensual relationships going on for prolonged periods, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalized by invoking criminal jurisprudence,” the Bench noted.
The Court distinguished between consensual relationships and those founded on false promises of marriage, emphasizing that a prolonged physical relationship without protest or insistence on marriage by the woman is indicative of mutual consent.
“In a situation where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of the alleged promise made by the appellant to marry her,” the Court observed. “The longer the duration of the physical relationship between the partners without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on a false promise of marriage.”
Background of the Case
The case arose in 2012 when the accused, a social worker, was alleged to have repeatedly coerced the complainant into sexual relations under the false promise of marriage. According to the complainant, this relationship lasted from 2008 to 2017, during which the accused allegedly assured her that he would marry her despite already having two wives.
The accused, however, claimed the relationship was consensual and that the complainant’s allegations were motivated by his refusal to continue financial support.
After the complainant lodged an FIR against him under Sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, the sessions court granted anticipatory bail. Subsequently, another FIR accusing the accused of molesting the complainant’s daughter was also quashed by the courts.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court overturned the Bombay High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR, stating that the long duration of the relationship, coupled with the absence of any protest or demand for marriage, undermined the claim of a relationship based on false promises.
“Making an allegation of non-fulfilment of promise to marry without undue delay by the promissee would… be an indicator of a false promise being made from the initial stage,” the Court observed. “The fact that the two remained unmarried from 2008 till 2017 without there being any protest or objection by the complainant indicates the intention on the part of the accused to marry was not central to their relationship.”
The Court also pointed out that the real cause of the allegations appeared to be financial, as the discontinuation of monetary support by the accused seemed to trigger the complaint.
Broader Implications
This judgment underscores the need to differentiate consensual relationships from those built on deceit, cautioning against the misuse of criminal law in matters of failed relationships. The Supreme Court’s observations provide a significant precedent in handling cases involving allegations of false promises of marriage, urging courts to closely examine the circumstances and nature of the relationship.
The ruling is expected to shape judicial approaches in similar cases, ensuring that consensual relationships are not unjustly criminalized, and false accusations do not erode the gravity of genuine cases.
