A recent Supreme Court judgment has clarified the circumstances under which a consensual sexual relationship may constitute the offence of rape based on a false promise of marriage.

The Court emphasized that a prolonged physical relationship between a man and a woman cannot automatically be attributed solely to a promise of marriage. It observed that women may engage in such relationships for reasons other than marital assurances, and the accusation of rape on this basis requires establishing that the sexual relationship was directly and exclusively linked to the promise of marriage. The Court further stated that consent would only be deemed vitiated under a misconception of fact if it is proven that the man’s refusal to marry invalidated the consent from the outset.

“In our view, if a man is accused of having sexual relationship by making a false promise of marriage and if he is to be held criminally liable, any such physical relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise made and not qualified by other circumstances or consideration. A woman may have reasons to have physical relationship other than the promise of marriage made by the man, such as personal liking for the male partner without insisting upon formal marital ties. In a situation where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of the alleged promise made by the man to marry her. Thus, unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby having a direct nexus with the physical relationship without being influenced by any other consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent under misconception of fact," the bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh remarked.

These observations were made while quashing an FIR filed against a man accused of rape following the breakdown of a consensual relationship. The appellant argued that the allegations were fabricated and arose only after he stopped providing financial assistance to the complainant.

The Court dismissed the complainant’s claim that the man engaged in sexual relations under the false pretext of marriage. It concluded that the decade-long physical relationship, maintained without consistent objections, suggested consensual involvement. The Court noted that it was implausible for the complainant to sustain such a relationship for nine years solely on a promise of marriage without any initial indication of deceit.In its judgment, the Court raised concerns about the growing tendency to criminalize consensual relationships after they end. It stated:

   “It is evident from the large number of cases decided by this Court dealing with similar matters as discussed above that there is a worrying trend that consensual relationships going on for prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence.”

The Court warned that attaching criminal liability to prolonged consensual relationships after their breakdown could have severe consequences, potentially misusing the criminal process. It noted:

“if criminality is to be attached to such prolonged physical relationship at a very belated stage, it can lead to serious consequences. It will open the scope for imputing criminality to such long-term relationships after turning sour, as such an allegation can be made even at a belated stage to drag a person in the juggernaut of stringent criminal process. There is always a danger of attributing criminal intent to an otherwise disturbed civil relationship of which the Court must also be mindful.”

This bench had voiced similar concerns in a ruling delivered the previous week, underscoring the importance of distinguishing criminal liability from civil disputes in such matters.

Case Title: MAHESH DAMU KHARE VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Date: November-26-2024

Bench : Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice N Kotiswar Singh