Calling failed relationship rape trivialises offence: SC

THe sublime margaret court on mon cautioned that branding every failed or bitter human relationship as rape trivialises the gravity of the crime and inflicts “indelible stigma and grave injustice” upon the accused. Condemning the “misuse of the criminal justice machinery” in such instances, the court stressed that the law must be invoked only where genuine sexual violence or lack of free consent is evident.A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan made the remarks while quashing an FIR and charge sheet accusing a Maharashtra-based lawyer of rape and criminal intimidation. The woman who filed the complaint had initially approached the advocate for legal assistance in a maintenance case and later entered a long-term intimate relationship with him.“The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent…To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice. Such misuse of the criminal justice machinery… is a matter of profound concern and calls for condemnation,” it held.Setting aside the March 6 order of the Bombay High Court that refused to quash the proceedings, the Supreme Court held that the material on record “unmistakably indicates” a consensual relationship that later turned bitter.The bench noted that the woman, a major and an educated individual, voluntarily stayed in contact with the advocate, met him frequently, and remained in a close and emotionally connected relationship for nearly three years.“This is not a case where the appellant lured respondent No. 2 solely for physical pleasures and then vanished…Physical intimacy during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage,” it added.In her FIR, the woman alleged rape under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and criminal intimidation under Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code. The high court, noting that a charge sheet had already been filed, held that a trial was necessary to test the veracity of her allegations, particularly because the relationship involved a lawyer-client “fiduciary dimension”.Disagreeing, the top court said a plain reading of the FIR showed that the woman met the lawyer “whenever he expressed a desire to meet her,” and that her continued participation in the relationship demonstrated voluntary consent. The court also noted that the complainant’s marriage was subsisting at the time and that her own statements did not reflect coercion, fraud or misrepresentation.The judgment acknowledged that in Indian society, women often consent to relationships on the assurance of marriage, and such consent may stand vitiated if the promise was made in bad faith solely to exploit them. In those cases, the law must remain sensitive to the breach of trust and violation of dignity.But the bench underscored that such allegations must be backed by “credible evidence and concrete facts, and not on unsubstantiated allegations or moral conjecture.”“On a careful consideration of the record, we are unable to discern any material that would warrant the invocation of Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. The facts of the present case unmistakably indicate that it is a classic instance of a consensual relationship having subsequently turned acrimonious,” it said.The bench also placed on record its appreciation for advocate Radhika Gautam, who assisted as amicus curiae.