New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Monday said every consensual relationship, where a possibility of wedlock may exist, couldn’t be given a “colour of a false pretext to marry” in the event of a fall out.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma observed a “growing tendency” of resorting to filing of criminal proceedings when relationships soured.
“We find that there is a growing tendency of resorting to initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour. Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry, in the event of a fall out,” it said.
The observations came when the top court set aside an order of the Calcutta High Court which refused to discharge a former judicial officer in an FIR lodged in 2015 for the alleged offence of rape.
The appellant before the bench was a former judicial officer who superannuated from the post of civil judge (senior division), city civil court, Calcutta.
An FIR was registered by the complainant who alleged that in 2014, during the pendency of a litigation arising out of a marital discord with her former husband, she came in touch with the appellant who was also separated from his wife.
She alleged the appellant had assured that he would marry her and take complete responsibility of her and her son from the first marriage, once she was divorced.
The complainant alleged that when her divorce was finalised, the appellant started avoiding her, telling her not to contact him.
The bench said even if the allegations in the FIR and chargesheet were taken at face value, it was improbable that the complainant had engaged in a physical relationship with the appellant only on account of an assurance of marriage.
“Considering the factual matrix of the case, it is clear that the physical relationship between the complainant and the appellant was consensual, and it cannot be said to be without her consent or against her will,” it added.
Even if the relationship was considered to be based on an offer of marriage, the woman couldn’t plead “misconception of fact” or “rape on the false pretext to marry”, the court said.
The verdict added, “It is from day one that she had knowledge and was conscious of the fact, that the appellant was in a subsisting marriage, though separated.” The bench said one might argue that the appellant was in a position of power to exert influence, however, there was nothing on record to establish “inducement” or “enticement”.
The bench said such litigation amounted to an abuse of the process of the law, observing any further litigation would only prolong the suffering of both the parties, who were living their own separate lives.
The top court, therefore, decided to terminate the proceedings in the “interest of justice”.
While allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the high court’s February 2024 order and said the appellant was granted anticipatory bail by high court in January 2016.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
