"Consensual Relationship Turning Sour Cannot Be Termed As Rape": Delhi Court

Observing that "a consensual relationship turning sour cannot be retrospectively branded as rape", the Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR alleging rape and caste-based atrocity, holding that the criminal law cannot be invoked to settle personal grievances arising from a failed relationship.

A single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled that the material on record clearly indicated a long-standing consensual romantic relationship between the parties, and that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Leading with its analysis on consent, the Court stated that allegations of rape arising from broken relationships require careful judicial scrutiny, particularly where both parties are adults, and the record reflects voluntary intimacy over time. It cautioned against the growing tendency to convert failed relationships into criminal prosecutions under Section 376 of the IPC.

The Court noted that the complainant and the accused had known each other for nearly four years and remained in continuous contact, including frequent meetings and extensive WhatsApp communication. The verified chats, the Court observed, reflected mutual affection and normal interaction, even after the date of the alleged incident, and did not disclose coercion, force, or caste-based abuse.

Taking note of the five-month delay in lodging the FIR, the Court held that while delay alone is not fatal in sexual offence cases, it assumes significance when read alongside the complainant's continued communication with the accused after the alleged incident.

On medical evidence, the Court recorded that no injuries or corroborative medical findings supported the allegation of forcible sexual assault. It further found the complainant's non-production of her mobile phone, despite a statutory notice, to be a relevant circumstance in assessing the overall credibility of the allegations.

Rejecting the claim of sexual exploitation on the false promise of marriage, the Court held that there was no material to show that any promise of marriage was made with dishonest intent at the inception of the relationship. The WhatsApp conversations, it noted, did not contain any assurance of marriage and instead reflected a gradually evolving consensual relationship.

On the invocation of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Court clarified that the provision applies only when an offence is committed on the ground of the victim's caste identity. In the present case, it found no contemporaneous material or verified communication suggesting that the alleged acts were motivated by caste considerations, rendering the charge unsustainable.

Concluding that the case fell squarely within the parameters for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court quashed the FIR along with all consequential proceedings.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)