Legal provisions involved: Section 376 of IPC and Section 507 of IPC
Judgment by: The Supreme Court
Bench: Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan
Facts
A woman who was living separately from her husband came into contact with an advocate during her legal case for alimony. Over time, they both got close and stayed in a relationship for around three years. They had physical relations during this time. Later, when he refused to marry her, she filed a case against him for rape and threats.
Key legal provisions
- Sections 376 & 376(2)(n) IPC – Rape (now replaced with Section 64 of BNS, 2023)
- Section 507 IPC – Criminal intimidation (now replaced with Section 351 of BNS, 2023)
Issues raised
- Whether a long-term relationship where both the partners willingly agreed to be intimate can be treated as a rape because they did not marry at the end?
Arguments of the case
The Advocate argued that the relationship was fully voluntary in nature and the complaint against him was filed only when things turned bad. The woman argued that she trusted him because he had agreed to get married, however he later backed out. The High Court refused to cancel the case, so the Advocate approached the Apex Court.
Judgement
The Bench stated that “In our opinion, the High Court’s refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS is unsustainable. The acts complained of in the present case occurred within the contours of a relationship that was, at the time, voluntary and willing. The continuation of the prosecution in such facts would be nothing short of an abuse of the court machinery.”
The Apex Court noted that the couple had continued their relationship willingly for years and there was never a sign of cheating or force being used since the beginning. The court further stated that every breakup should not be turned into a case of rape, as it reduces the real seriousness of the crime. Rape is a serious and heinous crime. Since the relationship was consensual, the Court cancelled the FIR.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
