SC: Consensual Relationship Turning Sour Not Enough to Constitute Rape

NEW DELHI, Oct 30: The Supreme Court on Friday expressed concern over the growing tendency to turn failed relationships into criminal cases, observing that consensual physical intimacy between two adults cannot subsequently be treated as rape merely because their relationship has ended.

A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan said criminal law should not be used as an instrument of retaliation following emotional disputes between consenting adults. It emphasised that courts must examine the entire relationship rather than judge past events solely through the circumstances surrounding its breakdown.

The observations came while the apex court discharged a man from Keralam of charges involving rape, cheating and contracting a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting.

The bench noted that courts have increasingly encountered cases in which relationships that initially involved mutual consent are later scrutinised to identify grounds for alleging sexual violence or exploitation.

It clarified that there is an important distinction between consent obtained through deliberate deception from the beginning and regret arising from a relationship that subsequently falls apart.

The court observed that while emotional distress following the end of a relationship is understandable, a subsequent change in circumstances or regret over earlier decisions cannot, by itself, convert consensual sexual activity into a criminal offence.

It further pointed out that treating every failed relationship as a potential rape case would undermine individual autonomy and unfairly restrict a person’s freedom to withdraw from a relationship.

The bench questioned whether a man’s decision to end a consensual relationship could automatically be interpreted as fraud or deception, answering that such a conclusion would be unjustified.

Expressing serious concern over the issue, the Supreme Court said rape is an extremely grave offence that must be invoked in situations involving actual sexual violence, coercion or manipulation of consent.

It cautioned that converting every unsuccessful relationship into a criminal prosecution could diminish the seriousness of sexual offences and undermine the credibility of genuine allegations.

The court also highlighted the devastating consequences of false accusations, including reputational damage, harassment and prolonged legal battles for those accused.

At the same time, the bench stressed that sexual violence remains a serious concern and that genuine complaints must receive proper attention. It observed that rape continues to be significantly underreported, with many survivors choosing not to approach authorities because of social stigma and concerns about family honour.

The judges underlined that preventing misuse of legal provisions must go hand in hand with ensuring justice for genuine victims.

The bench said the criminal justice system should never become a means of seeking revenge when personal relationships collapse. It added that the legislature did not intend to criminalise consensual sexual relations between adults simply because their relationship subsequently ended.

The court also expressed concern that despite repeated judicial warnings, such cases continue to emerge, with some disputes reportedly involving substantial monetary settlements demanded from the accused men.

After examining the allegations and available material, the Supreme Court concluded that the essential ingredients of rape, cheating and criminal deception were not established against the accused.

The man had approached the apex court challenging a Kerala High Court order that rejected his plea seeking discharge from the proceedings and quashing of the criminal case.

According to the prosecution, the woman alleged that the accused concealed the fact that he was already married before entering into a marital relationship with her.

She claimed that he induced her to enter into the relationship by creating the impression that their marriage was legally valid and subsequently established physical relations with her on that basis.

The woman, who had previously been divorced, further alleged that the accused married her at Mysuru while his first marriage was still legally subsisting.

She claimed that they lived together between 1996 and 2003 and accused him of rape, cheating and breach of trust.

The Supreme Court, however, found that the allegations and material on record did not satisfy the legal requirements necessary to sustain the criminal charges against him.