Failed Relationship Cannot Be Converted Into Rape Case After Breakup: Delhi High Court

On relationship between two consenting adults who are educated and independent, the Court said they must recognise that such relationships carry inherent uncertainties and do not necessarily culminate in marriage, as they may end for personal or practical reasons, including incompatibility.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, thus noted, “While many individuals are able to accept the breakdown of a relationship with maturity, there may be cases where emotional distress, disappointment, or wounded feelings influence subsequent actions. In such situations, allegations may sometimes arise which are rooted more in personal grievance than in the commission of a criminal offence. Courts are therefore required to exercise caution and discernment while examining such allegations, particularly where the material on record reflects a consensual relationship between adults”.

“In this Court‘s view, the present case is an example of a failed relationship, wherein the decision of the man to withdraw from the relationship was not accepted, and the consequences of such breakdown were sought to be addressed through the initiation of criminal proceedings. In the present matter, the prosecutrix has levelled allegations against the petitioner, attracting the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act”, the bench further noted.

Advocate Bajinder Singh appeared for the petitioner and Manoj Pant, APP for the State appeared for the respondent.

While allowing the petition under Section 482 CrPC, observed that criminal law cannot be invoked to retrospectively convert a broken relationship into an allegation of rape, particularly when the surrounding circumstances and contemporaneous material indicate voluntary intimacy.

The FIR had been lodged by the complainant alleging that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her at his residence in April 2023 on the false promise of marriage and had also made caste-based remarks. The complaint was registered nearly five months after the alleged incident, following which a chargesheet was filed for offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

Examining the record, the Court noted that the parties had known each other for nearly four years and had remained in constant communication over WhatsApp since 2019. The material placed before the Court, including verified WhatsApp conversations, revealed a long-standing romantic association marked by mutual affection and voluntary interaction, including exchanges continuing even after the date of the alleged incident.

The Court found that the tenor of these conversations did not reflect coercion, protest, or immediate distress.

The Court also took note of the fact that the complainant had stayed with the petitioner on previous occasions, which was admitted in her statement under Section 164 CrPC but not disclosed in the initial complaint. The continued interaction between the parties even after the alleged incident, coupled with the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, was held to be relevant in assessing the nature of the allegations.

On the issue of false promise of marriage, the bench held that there was no material to show that any such promise was made at the inception of the relationship with a dishonest intention. The WhatsApp chats did not disclose any assurance of marriage, nor did they indicate that consent for physical intimacy, if any, was obtained on that basis. The Court reiterated that not every breach of expectation or failed relationship can be criminalised as rape.

Furthermore, for the alleged offences under the SC/ST Act, 1989 the Court was of the opinion that the essential requirement under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act that the offence must have been committed on the ground that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste, was not satisfied.

Additionally, the verified conversations did not reveal any caste-based abuse, and the surrounding circumstances did not support the allegation that the offence, if any, was motivated by caste identity.

The Court cautioned against the increasing tendency to give criminal colour to personal disputes arising out of failed relationships, observing that misuse of serious penal provisions not only undermines the object of protective legislation but also causes grave prejudice to the accused.

Therefore, holding that the material on record was sufficient to rule out the allegations and that allowing the trial to proceed would result in injustice, the High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating from it.

Cause Title: Dr Avadesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi And Another [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:490]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Bajinder Singh, Subhash Choudhary, Advocate

Respondents: Manoj Pant, APP for the State with SI Abhishek Singh, PS Wazirabad, Delhi, Tara Narula and Shivangi Sharma, Advocates for R-2 along with R-2-inperson.

Click here to read/download the Judgment