Mere Failure Of Relationship Doesn’t Give Rise To Criminal Liability: Uttarakhand High Court Quashes Rape Case
The Uttarakhand High Court was considering a criminal revision preferred against the order rejecting the discharge application filed by the accused.
Justice Alok Mahra, Uttarakhand High Court
While quashing a rape case against a man, the Uttarakhand High Court has held that the dissolution of a relationship, by itself, does not give rise to criminal liability.
The High Court was considering a criminal revision preferred against the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, rejecting the discharge application filed by the revisionist who was booked in a case registered under Section 376 of the IPC.
The Single Bench of Justice Alok Mahra held, “Be that as it may, it is apparent from the record that the parties are educated adults, who entered into a relationship voluntarily after meeting on a matrimonial website and they were mature enough to understand the consequences of their action and were possessed of sufficient understanding, maturity, and discernment to comprehend the nature and consequences of their actions. An educated and independent adult, upon entering into a consensual relationship, must also recognise that the law cannot be invoked to criminalize the mere failure of a relationship. The dissolution of a relationship, by itself, does not give rise to criminal liability.”
Advocate Rajat Mittal represented the revisionist while Additional Government Advocate Pradeep Lohani represented the State.
Factual Background
The revisionist and the informant/complainant met through a matrimonial website, and thereafter their families interacted with each other. Intimacy grew between the complainant and the revisionist. It was mentioned in the FIR that the mother of the revisionist was not agreeable to the marriage due to the dark complexion of the complainant, but the revisionist assured the complainant that he would go against his family to marry her. It was further mentioned in the complaint that both the complainant and the revisionist decided to spend time together, and went to Rishikesh. They stayed there in a resort where it was alleged that the revisionist, for the first time, had physical relations with the complainant. Thereafter, they returned to their respective places and have been in a relationship since then.
It was also mentioned that they went to Coorg alongwith two other common friends and again physical relations were allegedly established between the complainant and the revisionist. The complainant mentioned that after a month, the revisionist tried to neglect the complainant and started avoiding video calls and messages of the complainant. As such, the complaint was filed where the complainant had sought a prayer that strict action be taken against the revisionist under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. This complaint became the basis for the FIR.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that both the parties are educated adults, who entered into a relationship voluntarily and were possessed of sufficient maturity. The Bench noted that two incidents of physical relationship mentioned in the FIR occurred while the parties were vacationing together at tourist destinations in Rishikesh and in Coorg alongside common friends.
The Bench further found that no protest or prompt action was taken by the complainant after these incidents. Thus, considering such aspects and circumstances, the Bench allowed the revision and quashed the case against the revisionist.
Cause Title: Kunal Bhakat v. State Of Uttarakhand (Case No.: CRLR/556/2025)