Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr Swarana Kanta Sharma has quashed the rape and SC/ST Act case and all consequential proceedings against an accused man, holding that the complaint stemmed from a consensual adult relationship that later broke down. The petition arose from allegations by the complainant woman that she was sexually assaulted at the man’s residence and was targeted with caste-based remarks, alongside claims linked to an alleged assurance of marriage. The Court found the record did not prima facie support absence of consent or a deceptive promise of marriage, and it cautioned that adults cannot invoke rape law to criminalise a breakup. It added that the end of a relationship, by itself, does not create criminal liability and must be approached with restraint and respect for autonomy.

The parties had known each other since 2019 and were in continuous telephonic and WhatsApp contact over several years. Their association included multiple in-person meetings in Kolkata and Delhi, during which the prosecutrix stayed at the petitioner’s residence on more than one occasion.

Also Read: Attendance Shortfall Cannot Bar Law Students From Exams; Delhi High Court Grants Relief To DU Law Students

Following the complaint, an FIR was registered invoking offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reiterated the allegations of rape, promise of marriage, and caste-based abuse. Upon investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the matter was listed for arguments on charge.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings, asserting that the relationship was consensual and that the criminal law was invoked after the relationship broke down. The State and the prosecutrix opposed the petition, contending that the allegations disclosed cognisable offences warranting trial.

The Court examined the statutory definition of rape and recorded that “the question – as to whether the prosecutrix consented to the establishment of physical relations with the petitioner – cannot be examined in isolation and must be assessed in the backdrop of the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties.”

While noting the seriousness of the allegations, the Court observed that “it is not in dispute that the prosecutrix and the petitioner had known each other for nearly four years prior to the registration of the FIR.” The Court took note of admitted facts relating to continued interaction, overnight stays, and sustained communication even after the alleged incident.

On delay, the Court recorded that “the alleged incident is stated to have taken place on 03.04.2023, whereas the FIR was lodged on 13.09.2023,” and observed that the delay, “when viewed in conjunction with the continued interaction between the parties, assumes significance.”

Regarding electronic evidence, the Court observed that “the WhatsApp conversations exchanged between the parties…stand duly verified and whose authenticity is not in dispute.” It further recorded that “the tenor of these messages does not indicate any immediate distress or protest.”

On the allegation of false promise of marriage, the Court observed that “a perusal of the WhatsApp conversations…does not disclose any assurance or promise of marriage extended by the petitioner at any point of time. The exchanges, when read as a whole, indicate a consensual romantic relationship rather than one founded on a promise of marriage,” 

While examining the SC/ST Act allegation, the Court recorded that “the essential requirement that the alleged offence must have been committed on the ground that the prosecutrix belonged to a Scheduled Caste is not satisfied.”

The Court further observed “An educated and independent adult, upon entering into a consensual relationship, must also recognise that the law cannot be invoked to criminalise the mere failure of a relationship. The dissolution of a relationship, by itself, does not give rise to criminal liability. Such matters must be approached with sensitivity, restraint, and due respect for the autonomy and choices of both individuals involved.”

It added that “While many individuals are able to accept the breakdown of a relationship with maturity, there may be cases where emotional distress, disappointment, or wounded feelings influence subsequent actions. In such situations, allegations may sometimes arise which are rooted more in personal grievance than in the commission of a criminal offence. Courts are therefore required to exercise caution and discernment while examining such allegations, particularly where the material on record reflects a consensual relationship between adults.”

The Court said: “Such misuse of penal provisions, which are otherwise enacted to protect genuinely aggrieved persons, not only undermines the object of the law but also contributes to an undue burden on the criminal justice system through the registration of false or frivolous FIRs,”

Also Read: Release On Probation Does Not Erase Conviction Stigma In Departmental Proceedings: Supreme Court

The Court directed that “the FIR bearing No. 904/2023 registered at Police Station Wazirabad, Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. The petition is allowed and disposed of in above terms. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Bajinder Singh Subhash Choudhary, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State with SI Abhishek Singh, Ms. Tara Narula, Advocate, Ms. Shivangi Sharma, Advocate

Case Title: Dr. Avadesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi & Another
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:490
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 3/2025
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma