Supreme Court Condemns Criminalizing Failed Relationships as Rape: A Legal Perspective

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed concern over the troubling pattern of transforming failed relationships into criminal allegations such as rape, emphasizing that such misuse of the criminal justice system requires condemnation.

While dismissing an FIR in an alleged rape case, the Court stated that reclassifying every unsuccessful relationship as rape not only diminishes the gravity of the offense but also subjects the accused to lasting stigma and significant injustice.

Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan noted that rape accusations, being extremely serious, should be reserved for instances involving genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of consent.

The bench clarified that intimate relations occurring during a functioning relationship cannot retroactively be classified as rape simply because marriage did not result. However, they also emphasized that the law must remain responsive to genuine cases where trust has been violated and dignity compromised.

"This court has repeatedly observed the concerning tendency where broken relationships are criminalized," the judgment stated.

The verdict addressed an appeal challenging a March 2025 Bombay High Court order that had refused to quash an FIR registered in August 2024 in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

The Court noted that the rape allegation centered entirely on the complainant's assertion that physical relations occurred under false marriage promises.

"We determine that this is not a case where the appellant engaged with respondent no. 2 merely for physical gratification before disappearing. Their relationship spanned three years, which constitutes a substantial time period," the Court observed.

The bench emphasized that intimate relations during a functional relationship cannot be retrospectively labeled as rape solely because marriage did not materialize.

The Court acknowledged that in India, marriage carries profound social and cultural significance.

The justices stated that while the law must protect genuine victims whose trust and dignity have been violated, applying this principle requires credible evidence and concrete facts, not merely unsubstantiated allegations.

They criticized the High Court for failing to recognize that a straightforward reading of the FIR revealed the consensual nature of the relationship between the parties.

The bench concluded that the acts in question occurred within a relationship that was voluntary at the time, stating: "Continuing prosecution under such circumstances would constitute an abuse of judicial process." Consequently, they quashed both the FIR and the charge sheet.

The Court allowed the appeal and overturned the High Court order.

According to case details, the woman had previously filed a complaint against her husband and initiated proceedings for maintenance. The Court noted that during these proceedings, she met the appellant, a practicing lawyer, and they developed a close relationship over time.

The Court observed that although the man had expressed marriage interest, she declined due to her complicated marital history. Later, after she allegedly became pregnant and underwent termination, she insisted on marriage, which the man refused.