Promise of Marriage Does Not Make Consensual Relationship Rape: Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Case

Accused Challenges Calcutta HC’s Partial Relief

The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of Consensual Relationship Rape, citing lack of evidence and long delay in the complaint. The case involved charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

A two-judge bench, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar, allowed the man’s appeal after the Calcutta High Court denied him relief, even though it had dismissed charges against his parents and uncle.

Complaint Based on Promise of Marriage

The allegations stemmed from a relationship that allegedly began when the prosecutrix was 15 years old. She claimed that she engaged in a physical relationship with the accused based on a promise of marriage, and filed a complaint under Sections 417, 376, 506 IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

However, the complaint was lodged over three years later, after she turned 18. She alleged that the accused withdrew from the promise and that his family humiliated her, which led her to approach the police.

This transition in the narrative raised concerns about misuse of the law in cases of Consensual Relationship Rape, particularly where adults retrospectively challenge past consensual intimacy.

SC Observes Lack of Evidence and Delay

While the State and complainant argued that consent of a minor is invalid, the Supreme Court rejected this argument due to the absence of forensic or substantial evidence supporting the allegation of rape. Promise of Marriage Does Not Make Consensual Relationship Rape: Supreme Court Quashes POCSO CaseThe bench observed that the FIR seemed strategically delayed and aimed to invoke POCSO without a clear basis. The prosecutrix herself had admitted that the relationship was consensual, based on a promise of marriage.

Referring to landmark judgments such as Prithivirajan v. State, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, the Court noted that Consensual Relationship Rape cases must be differentiated from instances where coercion or exploitation is clearly established.

Verdict: FIR an Abuse of Process

In its final order, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the FIR, and dismissed all related criminal proceedings. The bench highlighted that the complaint represented an abuse of the process of law, especially considering the delayed FIR and the consensual nature of the relationship.

The Court emphasized that criminal law should not be used vindictively in Consensual Relationship Rape matters, especially when no evidence of force, coercion, or threat exists.

“The nature of evidence, coupled with the delay in filing the FIR, clearly indicates that this case falls under the misuse of legal provisions in a Consensual Relationship Rape context,” the bench observed.

The Court also disposed of all pending interlocutory applications, bringing the case to a close.

Case title- [Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors.]