Long-Standing Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Construed as Rape Based on Alleged False Promise of Marriage — Prosecution Held as Gross Abuse of Law

Consensual physical relations over a prolonged period cannot amount to rape merely on the ground of an alleged false promise of marriage. A highly educated adult woman is presumed to understand the nature and consequences of her actions. The delay in lodging the FIR and the complainant’s contradictory statements weakened the credibility of the allegations.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, holding that: a. The prolonged consensual relationship over 16 years negated the claim of misconception of fact or deceit. b. The complainant’s inaction for 16 years and her continued association with the appellant were inconsistent with her allegations of coercion. c. The allegations appeared to be an afterthought arising out of a soured relationship rather than any criminal offence.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India (COI) — Article 136

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482, Section 161, Section 164, Section 173(2)

3. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 376 (Rape), Section 384 (Extortion), Section 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), Section 504 (Intentional insult), Section 506 (Criminal intimidation)

Subjects:

Consensual Relationship, False Promise of Marriage, Misconception of Fact, Long-Standing Affair, Criminal Proceedings, Quashment, Abuse of Process, Delay in FIR

Nature of the Litigation:

Criminal Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India arising from the dismissal of the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of criminal proceedings.

Relief Sought: The appellant sought quashing of the FIR No. 269 of 2022 and all subsequent criminal proceedings initiated against him for alleged offences under Sections 376, 384, 323, 504, and 506 of IPC.

Reason for Filing the Case: The appellant was accused of sexual exploitation under the false promise of marriage over a period of 16 years, extortion, and criminal intimidation.

Prior Decisions: The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the appellant’s petition under Section 482 CrPC, leading to the present appeal.

Issues:

a. Whether a long-standing consensual relationship between two adults can amount to rape based on an alleged false promise of marriage? b. Whether there was an element of deceit or misconception of fact in the consent provided by the complainant? c. Whether the FIR filed after a delay of 16 years is sustainable in law?

Submissions/Arguments:

On Behalf of the Appellant: a. The relationship between the appellant and the complainant was consensual and lasted for 16 years without any coercion or duress. b. The complainant was an educated adult and fully aware of the nature and consequences of their relationship. c. The allegations were made only after the relationship turned sour and the appellant married another woman.

On Behalf of the Respondents: a. The complainant consented to the relationship based on the appellant’s promise of marriage. b. The appellant sexually exploited and blackmailed the complainant by threatening to release intimate videos.