The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a rape complaint filed by a woman against a man, reiterating that consensual relationships between adults cannot be retroactively criminalised.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said,

"Where two adults of their own volition, engage in consensual sexual relation over a sustained period, the subsequent refusal of the man to marry the woman, howsoever regrettable, does not, ipso facto, transmute such intimacy into the offence of rape as punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. "

Both parties had met in Ireland and were in a relationship for two years. The complainant had previously been in a troubled marriage and had a 7-year-old child. After her divorce, she moved into a live-in relationship with the accused. Subsequently, the relationship did not work out and when the accused came to India, he stopped responding to the complainant.

While noting that the relationship occurred abroad, the Court said,

"The complaint read in its entirety does not narrate coercion, deception at inception or force. It speaks of companionship, cohabitation, shared domesticity and consensual intimacy extending over 2 years...The intimacy occurred in Ireland, the cohabitation occurred in Ireland, the shared life occurred in Ireland. What has followed is not an allegation of violence, but an allegation of betrayal. Therefore, it is not a case of having sexual intercourse on deceit from the inception, it is trite that “the law does not criminalize heart break”."

The Court observed that a promise of marriage was false only when it had been made with the intent to not follow through with it.

"A promise of marriage becomes “false” in law only when it is shown that the promise was a mere ruse, deceitful stratagem, never intended to be honoured. A subsequent change of mind, emotional incompatibility, familial opposition or mere reluctance does not transmute into criminal intent at inception."

Quashing further investigations into the complaint, the Court highlighted that the criminal justice system should not become a weapon in disputes of failed relationships.

"The criminal justice system an instrument of State power, it cannot be permitted to become a weapon in private disputes arising out of failed relationships. The facts, even if accepted in toto, disclose nothing beyond a relationship that did not culminate into matrimony. To permit investigation in such circumstances would not advance justice, it would distort it."

Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol and Advocate Mohan Kumar G represented the accused.

The State was represented by Additional Special Public Prosecutor Advocate BN Jagadeesha.

Advocate Parameswarappa C represented the complainant.