Supreme Court Given Clarity on Misuse of IPC Sections 376 and 506

Facts:

The appellant was accused of repeatedly committing rape under a false promise of marriage and criminal intimidation. The complainant alleged that she was forced into a sexual relationship and threatened by the appellant, leading her to file FIR No. 272 of 2019 under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC. The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appellant’s petition to quash the FIR.

Contentions of the Appellant:

1. The FIR and supporting documents did not disclose a cognizable offence.
2. The relationship was consensual and allegations were made with ulterior motives due to personal grievances.
3. Contradictions existed in the complainant’s statements.
4. The complainant was aware of the consensual nature of their relationship and continued it voluntarily until the appellant’s marriage.

Contentions of the Respondent:

1. A prima facie case was made out against the appellant.
2. Statements under Section 164 CrPC established the allegations, including threats and a false promise of marriage.
3. The delay in reporting was attributed to fear of harm to the complainant’s brother, as threatened by the appellant.

Issues:

1. Whether the appellant committed repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC?
2. Whether the appellant engaged in criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC?
3. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the FIR?
4. Whether the relationship between the appellant and complainant was consensual?

Principle of the Case:

A consensual relationship, where the promise of marriage was not a precondition to intimacy, cannot later be colored as criminal in the absence of malice or false intent at the inception of the relationship. The court emphasized that consensual relationships should not be turned into criminal accusations when they fail to culminate in marriage.

Final Order:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the FIR and all related proceedings. It ruled that the relationship was consensual and did not amount to criminal acts under Sections 376(2)(n) or 506 IPC.

Impact on Public Law and Order:

This judgment establishes a precedent against the misuse of criminal law to settle personal scores in failed relationships. By affirming that consensual intimacy cannot be equated with coercion or fraud without evidence of malice, it protects the sanctity of consensual relationships. It prevents legal systems from being burdened by cases based on misconceived allegations, fostering trust in judicial fairness and deterring frivolous complaints.

Case Citation:

Supreme Court of India
Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi
Criminal Appeal No. ______ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2793 of 2024)
Date of Judgment: November 20, 2024