The Supreme Court has expressed deep concern over the misuse of sexual offence provisions in disputes arising from failed personal relationships, cautioning that criminal law must never be converted into a weapon for vengeance or harassment. Clarifying the legal boundaries governing intimacy between consenting adults, the bench underlined that trial courts cannot treat every unfulfilled promise of marriage as sexual assault or breach of trust. The court emphasized that the judiciary must draw a firm distinction between a calculated, deceptive promise made solely to obtain sexual access and a genuine romantic relationship that ultimately fails to culminate in matrimony.
Distinguishing Deceit From Genuine Relationship Failure
Addressing the growing number of prosecutions alleging rape under the pretext of marriage, the Supreme Court laid down the precise evidentiary requirements needed to establish criminal liability. The bench observed that to substantiate a charge of rape founded on a false promise of marriage, the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused possessed a fraudulent intention right from the inception of the relationship. In legal terms, it must be proven that the promise was an intentional deceit made purely to induce physical relations, with no bona fide intent to ever honour it.
Conversely, when two consenting adults enter into physical intimacy voluntarily with a sincere intention to marry, but the union subsequently falls apart due to familial resistance, unforeseen circumstances, or mutual incompatibility, such an outcome cannot furnish grounds for a criminal charge of rape. The bench made it clear that an unsuccessful romance cannot be retrospectively converted into a criminal offence simply because expectations were not met.
Protecting Personal Liberty and Preventing Systemic Abuse
The apex court voiced serious alarm over the routine filing of criminal complaints in ordinary romantic and matrimonial disputes. Prolonged criminal trials arising from fully consensual engagements not only curtail individual freedom but also place an unwarranted burden on judicial infrastructure. The bench warned that when stringent criminal provisions are used to settle scores, exert undue pressure, or extract compliance, it fundamentally dilutes the sanctity of laws designed to punish non-consensual sexual offences.
Judges pointed out that trivialising these protective provisions through retaliatory litigation damages public faith in the criminal justice system and harms genuine survivors who rely on these laws for protection and restitution.
High Courts Urged to Exercise Inherent Quashing Powers
To curb vexatious litigation at the threshold, the Supreme Court called upon High Courts across the country to exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The bench observed that where case records demonstrate that the physical relationship throughout its tenure was founded on free and voluntary consent between adults, High Courts should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings.
Balancing Adult Autonomy and Criminal Justice
Reaffirming its established jurisprudence on adult autonomy, the Supreme Court ruled that consent willingly granted by an adult during a relationship cannot be invalidated in hindsight merely because the couple separated. This decision establishes a crucial judicial safeguard, seeking to ensure that rigorous laws against sexual violence remain focused on authentic cases of assault while shielding consensual adult relationships from malicious criminal prosecution.
