Educated woman can't say misled if aware of man's married status but continue relation: Delhi HC

The high court passed the verdict while quashing an FIR against a man accused of sexually harassing the complainant under the false pretext of marriage, coupled with fraud and cheating.

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has quashed a rape case against a man and said an educated and independent woman willingly continuing a relationship with a married man cannot claim being "misled or exploited".

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma further noted the criminal justice system was increasingly being burdened with FIRs with offences of rape where allegations of sexual exploitation were levelled on the ground of false promise of marriage, often after prolonged periods of consensual relationships.

"Many such cases come before the courts where the parties, being majors, have voluntarily engaged in sexual relations over a span of time, and when the relationship eventually fails – whether due to incompatibility or any other differences – allegations of rape are pressed," the court's verdict on September 3 said.

The judgment added, "To permit every such failed relationship to be converted into a criminal prosecution for rape would be contrary not only to the constitutional vision of justice, but also to the very spirit and object of the law of sexual offences." The complainant alleged the accused raped her repeatedly, promising to marry her despite having no intention and later married another woman.

The court highlighted the case as a "clear example" where consensual relationship, albeit complicated, couldn't be clothed with the allegation of rape only because the relationship did not culminate in the manner one party desired.

"When a complainant, being an educated and independent woman, willingly continues to engage in such a relationship even with knowledge of the petitioner's marital status, it cannot thereafter be said that she was misled or exploited in law," the high court said.

In court's view, the law governing the offence of rape was intended to protect the bodily integrity and autonomy of women and punish those who exploit them by force or by deception which vitiates free consent.

It is not designed to become a tool in disputes where two consenting adults, fully aware of their choices and the attendant consequences, subsequently fall apart, the court said.

"Adults entering into intimate relationships must take responsibility for the decisions they voluntarily make, including the emotional, social, or legal risks inherent in such relationships," it added.

Justice Sharma said while the court's role was not to sit in judgment over the morality of such relationships, nor to enforce notions of social propriety between consenting adults, at the same time, the law couldn't be "stretched to shield a party" from the foreseeable consequences of choices made consciously and repeatedly.

"To do so would not only trivialise the gravity of genuine cases of sexual assault but would also risk turning the solemn remedy of criminal law into an instrument of vengeance or leverage," the court said.

In the case at hand, it was pointed out that once the formal proposal of marriage between the families had failed due to the demand of dowry, the complainant and the accused continued to meet each other, travelled together and entered into a relationship, including a physical one, consensually.

The court noted even after the complainant came to know that the accused married someone else, she continued to accompany him and maintained sexual relations with him.

"These circumstances lend credence to the contention of the petitioner that the relationship between the parties was consensual and not induced by a false promise of marriage," the court said.