Bombay HC Quashes Rape Case Against Lawyer Terming It As Consensual Relationship Gone Sour
🔹 Legal Background
Section 375 IPC (Rape) – Defines rape as sexual intercourse against a woman’s will, without consent, or under misconception of fact.
Consent under Section 375 IPC
“Consent” must be free and voluntary agreement.
Consent obtained under misconception of fact (e.g., false promise of marriage) may amount to rape.
Section 482 CrPC – High Courts’ inherent powers to quash FIRs/charges when allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose commission of offence.
🔹 Judicial Reasoning (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court quashed the rape case against a lawyer accused by a woman on grounds that:
The relationship between the complainant and accused was long-standing and consensual.
Allegations showed that the sexual relations continued for a substantial period, and the woman participated willingly.
The dispute arose only after the relationship broke down, leading to allegations of rape.
The FIR did not disclose a case of rape but rather a “relationship gone sour.”
Courts must be cautious to prevent misuse of rape laws as a weapon of vengeance in failed relationships.
🔹 Key Case Laws Supporting the View
1. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608
SC held that a false promise of marriage amounts to rape only if from the very beginning the accused never intended to marry and obtained consent under deception.
If the relationship was consensual and later failed due to differences, it cannot be termed rape.
2. Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46
SC ruled that consensual relationship under promise of marriage, which later could not materialize, is not rape if the promise was made in good faith.
3. Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675
Distinction drawn between breach of promise (not rape) and false promise without intention from the beginning (rape).
4. Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108
SC quashed rape conviction, holding that long-term consensual relationship which breaks later cannot be termed rape.
5. Shambhu Kharwar v. State of U.P. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1037
Reiterated that failed relationships do not automatically convert consensual intimacy into rape.
🔹 Principles Evolved
Consent must be free – If a woman willingly engages in a relationship, it is not rape merely because it later fails.
Promise of marriage cases – Rape charge is sustainable only if the promise was false from inception.
Relationship breakdown ≠ rape – A consensual relationship that ends in bitterness does not attract Section 375 IPC.
Abuse of process – FIRs lodged after failed relationships are liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC to prevent harassment.
🔹 Conclusion
The Bombay High Court quashed the rape case against the lawyer, rightly noting that it was a consensual relationship that later turned sour, not a case of sexual assault. Courts have consistently held that consensual intimacy in the backdrop of a failed relationship cannot be converted into allegations of rape, unless there was clear evidence that consent was obtained through fraud or deception from the very beginning.
RELATED Blog
0 comments