The Supreme Court has held that the mere compromise of a criminal case arising out of a failed relationship which was consensual, cannot automatically be treated as proof of guilt or with low moral fabric for recruitment to the police force. The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board had concluded that the offence involved moral turpitude and treated the compromise as an admission of guilt, despite the appellant making a full and truthful disclosure of the case during recruitment.

Noting that with changing societal realities, pre-marital relationships are common today, the Bench set aside the Telangana High Court Division Bench’s judgment, and restored the order of the Single Judge and directed reconsideration of the appellant’s appointment as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable.

The case concerned a candidate whose provisional selection was cancelled after authorities found that he had previously been involved in a criminal case under Sections 417, 420 and 506 IPC. The woman in the complaint had alleged that the appellant had maintained a relationship with her on a promise of marriage but later married another woman. The criminal proceedings were ultimately compounded before a Lok Adalat.

A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan observed, “Pre-marital relationships are common today. Moreover, physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot and should not by itself be a ground to draw an adverse impression about the character of the person in that relationship. There is no law which prohibits two consenting unmarried adults to have a relationship of their choice. "

“…the statement that the appellant compromised because he was guilty is completely perverse and defies logic. While making such statements the respondent lost sight of the nature of the offence alleged…there is a serious doubt whether the offence of cheating was committed at all. Deposition of the victim in court alone could have proved its commission, if at all. Therefore, when the victim herself chose to withdraw the allegations and compound the offence, there was no occasion to suspect the character of the accused more so when both parties were adult and neighbors, knowing each other for several years…”, the Bench further said.

Senior Advocate K. Radhakrishnan appeared for the appellant and Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR appeared for the respondent.

The Court held that merely because an accused compromises a criminal case, it cannot be presumed that he admitted guilt. The Court found the employer’s assumption that the appellant settled the case because he was guilty to be baseless, perverse, and contrary to the nature of the allegations involved.

The Court noted that the allegations arose from a consensual relationship between two adults who had known each other for several years. Significantly, there was no charge of rape, no finding by any court that the appellant had deceived the complainant, and no material indicating that the compromise was secured through threats, coercion, or inducement.

“In the instant case, the offence alleged was one of cheating. One of the ingredients of the offence of cheating is false representation/ deception. Whether prosecutrix was deceived into entering a relationship, the prosecutrix alone could have disclosed. The public at large cannot tell whether she was deceived by the appellant. In such circumstances, when the prosecutrix chose not to pursue and had led no evidence, rather had expressed her consent to compound the case, there was no occasion for the respondents to read in between lines and draw an adverse inference regarding the character of the appellant”, the Bench observed.

The Court observed that pre-marital relationships between consenting adults are common and that the mere existence of such a relationship cannot justify an adverse inference about a person’s character.

“…Whether a person was deceived into a relationship can ordinarily be determined based on the statement of the person so deceived. Unless the person so deceived wishes to step into the witness box, it cannot be said that that person was deceived or cheated. Therefore, if that victim is not willing to bring home the charge, how can the accused be blamed for not contesting the proceeding on merit. Besides authorities would have to be sensitive to the changing times in the context of premarital relationships. Such pre-marital relationships are common today. Moreover, physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot and should not by itself be a ground to draw an adverse impression about the character of the person in that relationship…”, the Bench noted.

“…There is no law which prohibits two consenting unmarried adults to have a relationship of their choice. Further, where such a relationship spans a considerable period, say a few years, time and again this Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated by one party against the other on a complaint that the victim was lured into physical relationship by a false promise of marriage, because in such a case there would be a presumption that such relationship is based on a valid consent”, the Bench further noted.

Holding the Screening Committee’s decision arbitrary, the Supreme Court restored the Single Judge’s order directing reconsideration of the appellant’s candidature for appointment.

Cause Title: Gajula Thirupathi v. The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board And Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 493)

Appearances:

Appellant: Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR.

Respondent: K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Devina Sehgal, AOR, Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: