A consensual relationship with knowledge of existing marriage does not become rape upon breakup.

The petitioner sought to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in Special Case No. 598/2023, arising from allegations under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 504, 323 and 417 IPC and Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The complainant, a 32-year-old woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste, alleged that the petitioner, whom she had known since 2013 and whose office she joined in 2019, sexually exploited her after promising to divorce his wife and marry her.

She alleged that their sexual relationship continued until 24 April 2023, when she asked him to marry her; he then allegedly rejected and abused her, including referring to her caste during a later telephone conversation.

The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and that the charge-sheet material did not disclose the alleged offences.

The State and complainant opposed the petition, contending that the material established a prima facie case.

The investigation had concluded and a charge sheet had been filed.

1. Whether the charge-sheet allegations disclosed a prosecutable offence of rape arising from sexual relations allegedly induced by a promise to marry, despite the parties’ relationship and the complainant’s knowledge that the petitioner was married.

2. Whether the allegations satisfied the ingredients of the charged offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, including the requirement that the alleged caste-related abuse occur in a place within public view.

3. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings warranted quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, Prithivirajan v. State, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, it stated that a consensual physical relationship between adults, even where a promise of marriage is alleged, does not by itself amount to rape.

Citing Ramkrishna Chauhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, it stated that a place is within public view when members of the public can witness or hear the utterance; an incident within a private setting, without public presence, does not meet that requirement.

The Court considered the complainant’s knowledge that the petitioner was married, their relationship of nearly four years, and the absence of any divorce proceedings initiated by the petitioner.

It concluded that the allegation of a promise to marry after divorce was difficult to accept in those circumstances and that the breakdown of a prolonged consensual relationship did not, without more, establish criminality.

As to the SC/ST Act charges, the Court found no allegation that the petitioner engaged in sexual conduct because of the complainant’s caste.

The only caste-related allegation concerned a telephone conversation between the petitioner and the complainant; the Court held that, even if true, it did not occur in a place within public view.

It consequently found the invoked SC/ST Act offences unsupported by the necessary ingredients and concluded that the proceedings should not continue.