If Able-Minded Adults Reside Together As Live-In Couple For Couple Of Years, A Presumption Arises They Voluntarily Chose That Relationship: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case
Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that if two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship, fully aware of its consequences.
The Court quashed an FIR and criminal proceedings against a man (Appellant) accused of rape by his live-in-partner, who alleged that the Appellant established physical relationship with her under the false promise of marriage. The FIR was registered under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra held, “In our view, if two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences. Therefore, the allegation that such relationship was entered because there was a promise of marriage is in the circumstances unworthy of acceptance, particularly, when there is no allegation that such physical relationship would not have been established had there been no promise to marry.”
Advocates Gautam Barnwal represented the Appellant, while AOR Vanshaja Shukla appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant filed an Application before the Uttarakhand High Court to quash the FIR and the proceedings, arguing that the relationship was consensual, and the allegations were made with mala fide intentions. The High Court dismissed this Application, stating that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted, “In the instant case also, we find that the relationship between the appellant and the second respondent (the informant) was spread over two years. Further, they not only admit of having physical relations with each other but also of living together in a rented accommodation as a live-in couple.”
“Moreover, in a long drawn live-in relationship, occasions may arise where parties in that relationship express their desire or wish to formalize the same by a seal of marriage, but that expression of desire, or wish, by itself would not be indicative of relationship being a consequence of that expression of desire or wish,” the Bench remarked.
The Court further remarked, “A decade or two earlier, live-in relationships might not have been common. But now more and more women are financially independent and have the capacity to take conscious decision of charting their life on their own terms. This financial freedom, inter alia, has led to proliferation of such live-in relationships. Therefore, when a matter of this nature comes to a court, it must not adopt a pedantic approach rather the Court may, based on the length of such relationship and conduct of the parties, presume implied consent of the parties to be in such a relationship regardless of their desire or a wish to convert it into a marital bond.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “For all the reasons above, in our view, the impugned first information report and the consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof are nothing but abuse of the process of the court and the same deserves to be quashed. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The impugned first information report and the consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Ravish Singh Rana v. State Of Uttarakhand & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 635)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Mukesh Kumar; Advocates Gautam Barnwal, Nishant Gill, Saksham Kumar and Aakash Dangi
Respondents: AOR Vanshaja Shukla; Advocates Anubha Dhulia and Siddhant Yadav
