Supreme Court cautions against criminal cases stemming from failed relationships
text_fields
The Supreme Court on Monday raised concern over an increasing pattern of filing criminal complaints, such as rape, when consensual relationships end on a bitter note.
The remarks came as the court overturned a Calcutta High Court order that had refused to discharge a retired judicial officer in a rape case filed in 2015.
A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma stated that not every failed relationship should be viewed through the lens of false promises of marriage. "There is a growing tendency to initiate criminal proceedings when relationships sour. Every consensual relationship with the possibility of marriage cannot be turned into a case of false pretext once the relationship breaks down," the bench observed.
The case involved a former civil judge from the Calcutta City Civil Court who had retired from service. In 2015, an FIR was filed against him by a woman who alleged he had promised marriage and later backed out after her divorce was finalised.
According to the complainant, she met the retired judge in 2014 during ongoing legal proceedings related to her own marital issues. She claimed he assured her of marriage and promised to take care of her and her child from her first marriage. However, after her divorce, she said he began avoiding her and refused further contact.
The Supreme Court, however, noted that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant was fully aware from the start that the appellant was still legally married, albeit separated from his spouse. "Even if the relationship was based on a future possibility of marriage, it cannot be deemed as induced by deception or considered rape under false pretenses," the court said.
The bench emphasised that there was no evidence of coercion or manipulation, nor any misuse of power by the former judge. It added that pursuing the case further would only lead to unnecessary suffering for both parties, who had since moved on with their lives.
Calling the ongoing legal proceedings an "abuse of process," the court set aside the Calcutta High Court's February 2024 decision and concluded that the continuation of the case served no purpose. The appellant had previously been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court in January 2016.