NEW DELHI: Expressing its displeasure over the way women invoke criminal law against men on serious allegations of rape on the false pretext of marriage after a long consensual relationship turns sour, the Supreme Court, in a recent verdict, termed this as a "worrying trend."
A two-judge bench of the apex court, led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and also comprising Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, allowed the appeal filed by the accused, petitioner Mahesh Damu Khare.
Lawyers Mrunal Dattatraya Buva, Dhairyashil Salunkhe, and Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Advocate-on-Record (AOR), appeared for Khare before the top court and argued that the relationship was consensual and that the allegations were false, initiated only after he discontinued financial assistance to the complainant.
The apex court allowed the plea of the accused and rejected the complainant's argument that the appellant had forceful intercourse with her under the guise of a false promise of marriage.
"In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, we are of the opinion that, in the present case, no prima facie case has been made out about the commission of an offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Further, on perusal of the FIR, it is also noted that no allegations of cheating have been made against the appellant (Khare) to fall within the scope of Section 420 (Cheating) of the IPC, nor of any offences under other Sections of the IPC," the court observed and allowed the appeal filed by Khare.
The apex court also made it clear in its verdict that a woman may have reasons to have a physical relationship other than a promise of marriage made by the man, such as personal liking for the male partner without insisting upon formal marital ties. Thus, in a situation where a 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. "Thus, unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby having a direct nexus with the physical relationship without being influenced by any other consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent under misconception of fact," the apex court said.
It also agreed with the accused's argument and stated that "it appears that discontinuance of financial support to the complainant, rather than the alleged resiling from the promise to marry by the appellant, appears to be the triggering point for making the allegation by the complainant after a long consensual relationship for about nine years," the apex court observed.
The judgment, authored by Justice Singh, stated that the decade-long physical relationship, maintained without consistent protest or objection, suggested consensual involvement rather than coercion. "It was implausible that the complainant could have continued the relationship for nine years under a mere promise of marriage, without any evidence of deception at the outset," the SC said.
Primarily, the Bombay High Court had rejected Khare's writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR filed against him under charges of rape, cheating, Section 504 (Intentional insult), and Section 506 (Criminal intimidation) of the IPC. Khare then moved the apex court and filed an appeal seeking quashing of the High Court order.
Coming to the rescue of Khare, the apex court said, "If criminality is to be attached to such prolonged physical relationships at a very belated stage, it can lead to serious consequences. It will open the scope for imputing criminality to such long-term relationships after they turn sour, as such an allegation can be made even at a belated stage to drag a person into the juggernaut of stringent criminal processes. There is always a danger of attributing criminal intent to an otherwise disturbed civil relationship, of which the Court must also be mindful."
