Criminality can’t be imposed on breakups: SC

The decision of the court came while quashing a rape case against a man, with the court underscoring the boundaries of criminal law in matters of personal relationships

The breakup of a consensual relationship cannot be transformed into a criminal case, the Supreme Court held on Wednesday, adding that such cases, where no ingredients of criminality are established, amount to an abuse of the legal process.

According to the judgment, the complainant’s continued association with the accused over two years, even after the alleged incidents of coercion, contradicted her claims. (ANI)

“A mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings,” ruled a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh, highlighting that personal disappointments in such partnerships should not be given the colour of legal culpability.

The decision of the court came while quashing a rape case against a man, with the court underscoring the boundaries of criminal law in matters of personal relationships.

“What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship,” said the bench, emphasising that criminal law should not become a tool for vengeance in personal disputes.

The case arose from a relationship that began in 2017 and continued till 2019, during which the complainant and the accused met frequently and engaged in a physical relationship. The complainant later filed a rape case, alleging that the sexual relationship was premised on the accused’s promise to marry her, which he subsequently did not fulfil. However, the Supreme Court found that the facts of the case did not substantiate the allegations.

According to the judgment, the complainant’s continued association with the accused over two years, even after the alleged incidents of coercion, contradicted her claims. “It is inconceivable that the complainant would continue to meet the appellant or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with him in the absence of voluntary consent on her part,” the court observed.

The bench further noted that both individuals were educated adults who initially intended to marry but eventually went their separate ways. By 2019, the accused had married another person, and the complainant also married someone else the following year. The court remarked that this sequence of events suggested the FIR was a retaliatory measure triggered by the accused’s marriage.

“Thus, in our view, the continuation of the prosecution in the present case would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution,” held the bench.

The ruling delved into the broader legal principles surrounding consent and promises of marriage. Referring to established precedents, the court explained that for consent to be considered vitiated under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) -- which criminalises rape and has been replaced by Section 63 in the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita -- the promise of marriage must be demonstrably false, made in bad faith, and directly influence the decision to engage in a sexual relationship. “The ‘consent’ of a woman...must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act,” the court quoted from earlier judgments.

In this case, the Supreme Court found no evidence that the accused had made a false promise of marriage at the outset of the relationship, adding that the allegations did not meet the legal threshold for constituting rape or criminal intimidation under Sections 503 and 506 of IPC.

The judgment also emphasised the judiciary’s role in preventing the misuse of criminal law to settle personal scores. “The continuation of the prosecution in the present case would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law,” said the bench, cautioning against the overreach of legal remedies in matters that are primarily personal.

This decision adds to a growing body of rulings where the apex court has delineated the boundaries between consensual relationships and criminal culpability, reinforcing the principle that the breakdown of personal relationships, however emotionally painful, should not be allowed to escalate into baseless criminal accusations.