New Delhi: In a significant ruling reinforcing the distinction between consensual relationships and criminal offences, the Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR alleging rape and offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, observing that a failed romantic relationship cannot be retrospectively labelled as rape. The Court cautioned against the growing tendency to invoke serious criminal provisions to settle personal grievances arising out of broken relationships.
A single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the material on record clearly demonstrated a long-standing consensual relationship between two adults and that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Court quashed the FIR along with all consequential proceedings.
At the heart of the case were allegations by the complainant that the accused had sexually assaulted her and exploited her on the false promise of marriage, and had also committed offences under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court, however, found these allegations unsupported by contemporaneous evidence.
Emphasising the importance of consent in sexual offence cases, the High Court observed that allegations of rape emerging from failed relationships require careful judicial scrutiny, particularly where both parties are adults and the record reflects voluntary intimacy over a prolonged period. “A consensual relationship turning sour cannot be retrospectively branded as rape,” the Court remarked, warning that criminal law should not be used as a tool for vengeance or emotional retaliation.
The Court noted that the complainant and the accused had known each other for nearly four years and were in continuous contact during this period. The record revealed frequent meetings and extensive WhatsApp communication between the two. Verified chat transcripts placed before the Court reflected mutual affection, normal exchanges, and continued interaction even after the date of the alleged incident. Crucially, the Court found no indication of coercion, force, threat, or caste-based abuse in these communications.
The five-month delay in lodging the FIR was also taken into account. While reiterating that delay by itself is not fatal in cases of sexual offences, the Court held that it assumes significance when assessed alongside other surrounding circumstances. In the present case, the complainant’s continued communication with the accused after the alleged incident weakened the credibility of the accusations, the Court observed.
Medical evidence, or the lack thereof, further undermined the prosecution’s case. The Court recorded that no injuries or corroborative medical findings were present to support the allegation of forcible sexual assault. Additionally, the complainant’s failure to produce her mobile phone despite a statutory notice issued during the investigation was held to be a relevant factor in assessing the overall veracity of the claims.
On the allegation of sexual exploitation based on a false promise of marriage, the Court clarified the settled legal position that such a promise must be shown to be dishonest at the inception of the relationship to attract criminal liability. In the present case, the Court found no material to establish that any promise of marriage was ever made with mala fide intent. The WhatsApp conversations, it noted, did not contain any assurance of marriage and instead depicted a gradually evolving consensual relationship between the parties.
The invocation of provisions under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was also firmly rejected. The Court explained that Section 3(2)(v) of the Act applies only when an offence is committed specifically on the ground of the victim’s caste identity. In the absence of any contemporaneous evidence or verified communication indicating that the alleged acts were motivated by caste considerations, the Court held the charge to be unsustainable.
Concluding its analysis, the High Court stated that allowing the prosecution to continue would result in grave miscarriage of justice. The case, it held, squarely fell within the parameters warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the legal process.
