SC flags misuse of rape law in failed relationships, quashes FIR
Supreme Court says failed relationships can’t be branded as rape, flags misuse of rape law, and quashes FIR while overturning Bombay HC order
The Supreme Court on Monday (November 24) stated that the "disquieting tendency" of failed or broken relationships being given the colour of criminality, like rape, deserves condemnation, adding that such misuse of criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of concern.
‘Grave injustice to accused’
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan made the remarks while quashing an FIR in an alleged rape case. It further stated that to convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused an indelible stigma and grave injustice.
Also Read: CJI Surya Kant makes written mentioning mandatory on first day
The bench observed that since the offence of rape is of the gravest kind, it must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion or absence of free consent.
On physical intimacy retrospectively branded as rape
It further stated that physical intimacy during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape just because it did not lead to marriage. It stated that the law must remain sensitive to genuine cases where trust has been breached and dignity violated.
Also Read: Justice Surya Kant takes oath as 53rd Chief Justice of India
"This court has, on numerous occasions, taken note of the disquieting tendency wherein failed or broken relationships are given the colour of criminality," it said.
Sets aside Bombay HC order
The Supreme Court delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by a man challenging a March 2025 order of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, which had dismissed his application seeking the quashing of an FIR lodged in August 2024 in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar city.
The apex court noted the allegation of rape in the case hinges entirely on the complainant's claim that the man established physical relations with her on the false pretext of marriage.
Also Read: Outgoing CJI Gavai says judges need not rule against govt to prove independence
"We find that the present case is not a case where the appellant (man) lured respondent no. 2 (woman) solely for physical pleasures and then vanished. The relationship continued for a period of three long years, which is a considerable period of time," it said.
The bench said in such cases, physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage.
‘Law must remain sensitive to genuine cases’
It stated that the court is aware of the societal context in which, in a country like ours, the institution of marriage holds profound social and cultural significance.
The bench said the law must remain sensitive to genuine cases where trust has been breached and dignity violated, lest the protective scope of section 376 (punishment for rape) of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code be reduced to a mere formality for those truly aggrieved.
"At the same time, the invocation of this principle must rest upon credible evidence and concrete facts, and not on unsubstantiated allegations or moral conjecture," it said.
Also Read: Presidential reference: Why Supreme Court’s reply is a big letdown
The bench said the high court failed to appreciate that a plain reading of the FIR itself revealed that the relationship between the parties was, in fact, consensual.
It said the acts complained of in this case occurred within the contours of a relationship that was, at the time, voluntary and willing.
"The continuation of the prosecution in such facts would be nothing short of an abuse of the court machinery," the bench said while quashing the FIR and the charge sheet filed in the case.
It allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court order.
What prosecution said
According to the prosecution, the woman had filed a complaint against her husband and later initiated proceedings against him seeking alimony/maintenance.
The top court noted that in connection with the said proceedings, she was introduced to the appellant, who is a practising advocate, and over a period of time, they developed a close relationship.
Also Read: Why SC ruling 'will intensify Centre–State tensions and is a setback for federalism'
It noted that the man had expressed his desire to marry her, but owing to her troubled marital past, she declined the proposal.
It was claimed that the woman got pregnant. The pregnancy was terminated, and later, when she insisted on marriage, the man refused.
(With agency inputs)