The Supreme court has allowed to quash a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 376, 420, 504, and 506 of the IPC which alleged that the Appellant had engaged in a physical relationship with the complainant(Respondent no.2) under a false promise of marriage and flagged the “worrying trend”of invoking criminal law against men on allegations of rape on the false pretext of marriage after a long consensual relationship turned sour.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh observed :

“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 drew a line between what is a consensual relationship and relationships which are based on false promises of marriage.

"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 appellant to marry her. In our opinion, the longer the duration of the physical relationship between the partners without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on false promise of marriage by the male partner and thus, based on misconception of fact,"

It was the case of the accused, reportedly a social worker since 1985, that he assisted the complainant(Respondent no.2) in resolving the kidnapping of her elder daughter.

Subsequently, the complainant began frequenting the accused's office to assist him with his work, during which time the accused also provided her with financial support.

According to the accused, the complainant's requests for financial assistance became increasingly frequent, prompting him to distance himself from her. In response, the complainant allegedly began threatening the accused and his family members. Despite complaints lodged by the accused and his family against her, the complainant filed a case under Sections 376, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging rape, cheating, and criminal intimidation.

The complainant claimed that she first encountered the accused in 2008 while seeking employment and the accused stating that he needed a helper to care for his ailing wife, employed her. She alleged that the accused engaged in non-consensual sexual relations with her under a false promise of marriage, despite already being married to two women. The complainant further asserted that the accused assured her of marriage, citing the ill health of his existing wives, and that this arrangement continued until 2017, when the accused ended their relationship, telling her to do as she pleased and disregarding his alleged promise.

The Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused. Subsequently, the complainant filed another FIR accusing him of molesting her daughter, but the accused was granted protection in that case as well.

The accused then petitioned the Bombay High Court to quash both cases. However, the High Court dismissed his plea, observing that there was no prima facie evidence to establish that the relationship between the Petitioner(accused) and the complainant was consensual.

Aggrieved by the order, the Appellant sought relief from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in this case scrutinized what amounts to consent and when can a relationship be said as a relationship based on pretext of marriage.

The court observed that “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.”

After delving into the facts of the case, the bench deemed the relationship as an extramarital affair during the aforesaid period of nine years without any insistence by the complainant to marry the appellant. The Bench also pointed out that the complainant continued to have a physical relationship for a long time without any insistence on marriage would indicate the unlikelihood of any such promise made by the appellant for marrying her and it rather indicates that the relationship was a consensual one.

The court observed that, “In our opinion, the longer the duration of the physical relationship between the partners without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on false promise of marriage by the male partner and thus, based on misconception of fact. Moreover, even if it is assumed that a false promise of marriage was made to the complainant initially by the appellant, even though no such cogent evidence has been brought on record before us to that effect, the fact that the relationship continued for nine long years, would render the plea of the complainant that her consent for all these years was under misconception of fact that the Appellant would marry her implausible.”

The bench expressed its difficulty in assuming that the complainant despite being a mature person and having two children was not able to discover the deceitful behaviour of the appellant who continued to have sexual relationship with her for such a long period on the promise of marriage.

Further the court also pointed out that rather than the alleged promise of the appellant to marry the complainant the triggering point for making the allegation after a long consensual relationship for about nine years was the discontinuance of financial support.

The court also expressed concerns on the fact that if criminality is attached to such prolonged physical relationship at a very belated stage, it can lead to serious consequences.

Court added that, “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.”

Thus, after due consideration the court held that, “we are of the opinion that in the present case no prima facie case has been made out about commission of an offence of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC. Further, on perusal of the FIR it is also noted that no allegations of cheating have been made against the appellant to fall within the scope of Section 420 IPC nor of any of the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the Bombay High Court’s order was set aside.

However, the bench made it clear that there is no straight jacket rule in such cases and the decision in this case and observations made are to be understood in the factual matrix before the Court and highlighted that owing to dealing with human relationships and psychology which are dynamic and permeated with an array of unpredictable human emotions and sensitivities and hence, every decision relating to human relationships must be based on the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in the particular case.

Case Title: Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Advocate For Petitioner(s): Ms. Mrunal Dattatraya Buva, Adv. Mr. Dhairyashil Salunkhe, Adv. Mr. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, AOR

Advocate For Respondent(s): Ms. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.