The Punjab and Haryana high court has quashed a rape case registered against an army officer from Punjab, observing that a consensual relationship by itself cannot give rise to criminal liability under the rape law unless the statutory ingredients necessary to constitute the said offence are clearly made out.
“…human relationships are dynamic and may change with time. …Merely because consensual relationship does not culminate into marriage due to incompatibility, cannot be forcibly converted into life long relationship,” the bench of justice Alok Jain observed.
The criminal case was filed in August 2020 against the officer on the complaint of a woman. She alleged that he (officer) enticed the complainant to enter into a physical relationship with him, despite being fully aware of the fact that the complainant is elder to him and also being fully conscious of each other’s temperament, her lawyer had told the court. The lawyer added that the complainant, being a simple, educated girl, was unable to foresee the petitioner’s intentions, and it was beyond her apprehension as to why, after being entangled with her, the petitioner all of a sudden withdrew his commitment to live the life together.
The officer, on the other hand, had claimed that it was a case of a soured consensual relationship. The petitioner and the complainant were in a consensual relationship and subsequently proceeded to get engaged by performing a roka ceremony.
{{/usCountry}}The officer, on the other hand, had claimed that it was a case of a soured consensual relationship. The petitioner and the complainant were in a consensual relationship and subsequently proceeded to get engaged by performing a roka ceremony.
{{/usCountry}}However, owing to temperamental differences, the petitioner later refused to marry the complainant, the officer’s counsel had told the court, adding that the temperamental differences arose, when he was posted in a sensitive area as a result of which the channel of communication between them broke down, which the complainant, could not bear and allegedly started threatening him to commit suicide which further aggravated the situation. It was at this point that the officer took a decision not to marry the complainant, which ultimately led to the lodging of the present FIR, the court was told.
The court observed that the rape law clearly demonstrates that there are specific parameters under which a person can be charged with rape. “A bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that essential ingredients of Section 376 IPC are not satisfied in the present case, much less any of the situations contemplated thereunder,” the court said, adding that the woman is educated, who was fully aware, at all the times, that while entering into physical relations with the petitioner that they were not married.
“A merely consensual relationship even if it subsequently breaks down cannot be termed as a rape, particularly when there is neither any allegations of force nor of any misrepresentation or false promise at the inception by the petitioner,” the court taking note of the fact that in the case in hand, a roka ceremony between the parties was also solemnised in June 2020 that too after the complaint was lodged by the woman and the officer was put to notice by the police on his WhatsApp. It also took note of the fact that despite the pendency of the complaint, the petitioner made a sincere effort to restore the relationship. “However, when the things went out of hand, and the complainant repeatedly started threatening the petitioner with dire consequences, including allegations that the petitioner was provoking her to commit suicide, the petitioner withdrew from the relationship and categorically informed the complainant that he could not get married to her,” it noted.
The court observed that from the record, it does not appear that the initial promise to marry allegedly made by the petitioner was false to begin with. The promise could not be fulfilled due to intervening circumstances, which resulted in the criminal case.
“The present FIR seems to be an abuse of process of law, as it is apparent that both the parties were major and in a consensual relationship, and the subsequent fallout of the relationship was only on account of the temperament differences. Therefore, the same cannot be considered as an offence under Section 376 of IPC,” the court observed while quashing the FIR.