NEW DELHI: Supreme Court has held that a criminal prosecution cannot be reduced to a “strong-arm tactic” to force a person to marry by lodging a case of rape after consensual relations did not fructify in nuptial ties. It quashed criminal proceedings against a man which were initiated by his girlfriend after the relationship turned sour after three years of courtship.A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said consent allegedly under fear or misconception cannot be loosely inferred to fasten criminal liability on one of the parties when both admittedly had a consensual relationship and the other party willingly permitted a physical relationship. It said that a consensual relationship spread over three years has eventually ended with a criminal case lodged against the man in this case and it cannot be allowed.“Even on a bare reading of the complaint, there is no clear assurance or a promise made of marriage, since the specific allegation is that they entered into a physical relationship after courtship, fully knowing the consequences, but alleged to be under the pretext of marriage; clearly an afterthought. The respondent (the woman) is a well-educated woman, who entered into a consensual relationship and carried it on for three years, allegedly on the pretext of marriage, which never fructified. She categorically states that she would drop the charge if he marries her. A criminal prosecution cannot be reduced to a strong-arm tactic,” the bench said.Referring to the apex court’s earlier order, the bench said there must be adequate evidence to show that at the initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever of keeping his promise to marry the victim. It said there may be circumstances when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances.“In order to come within the meaning of the term “misconception of fact”, the fact must have an immediate relevance. Section 90 IPC (Consent given under fear or misconception) cannot be called into aid in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and fasten criminal liability on the other, unless the court is assured of the fact that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended to marry her,” the bench noted.In this case, the girl met the accused at an academy, wherein both were enrolled. Admittedly, they fell in love and their family members also talked to each other. On an understanding that they would be married, he used to visit her house, where she lived with her mother and brother. When nobody was at home, they entered into a physical relationship, which continued thereafter for about three years. Admittedly, the physical relationship continued for three years unabated and later they separated.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
The marriage proposal mooted by both the families also fell through, upon which the complaint was raised.After examining the complaint, the bench said, “We are unable to find any criminal culpability on the appellant who entered into a consensual relationship with the respondent, whose consent cannot be said to be coerced or obtained on a misrepresentation.”