Not Every Failed Relationship Can Be Treated as ‘False Promise to Marry’: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday underscored that every consensual relationship, even when entered with the hope of marriage, should not be construed as “rape on the false pretext of marriage” following a fallout. The apex court made these remarks while setting aside a Calcutta High Court order refusing to quash an FIR registered in 2015 against a retired judicial officer accused of rape.

A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma noted a “growing tendency” of individuals resorting to criminal proceedings when relationships sour, cautioning against misusing legal provisions in such circumstances.

“We find that there is a growing tendency of initiating criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour. Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry, in the event of a fallout,” the bench observed.

The case involved a former civil judge (senior division) from the city civil court in Calcutta, who was accused of rape by a woman he had been in a relationship with. The complainant had met the judicial officer during the pendency of her divorce proceedings in 2014. According to the FIR, the officer had promised to marry her and assume responsibility for her and her son from her previous marriage once her divorce was finalized. However, after the divorce, she alleged, the officer began to distance himself.

The court, while examining the FIR and chargesheet, held that the physical relationship between the complainant and the appellant was consensual. “It is improbable that the complainant engaged in a physical relationship only on account of an assurance of marriage,” the bench said.

Highlighting the facts, the court pointed out that the complainant was fully aware that the accused was already in a subsisting marriage, albeit separated. “Even if the relationship was based on an offer of marriage, the woman cannot plead ‘misconception of fact’ or ‘rape on the false pretext to marry’,” the court clarified.

The bench also dismissed the argument of the accused being in a position of power, stating that there was no material to prove any inducement or enticement.

Terming the litigation an “abuse of the process of law,” the court said further proceedings would only exacerbate suffering for both parties, who are now living separate lives. In the interest of justice, the apex court quashed the FIR and set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order dated February 2024.

The former judge had earlier been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court in January 2016.