Rape vs consent: Supreme Court frames 4-step test for high courts
The Supreme Court said courts must distinguish between rape and consensual sex, emphasising careful assessment of allegations based on false marriage promises
There exists a “clear distinction between rape and consensual sex”, the Supreme Court held on Wednesday as it ruled that courts must carefully assess allegations of sexual assault made on the promise of marriage. If the accused never intended to marry and made a false promise with sexual intentions, it held, such conduct would amount to cheating or deception.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, while quashing criminal proceedings against a man accused of rape, stressed that false or vexatious complaints not only tarnish a person’s image but also amount to an abuse of judicial process.
“It is by now well settled that summoning any person on the basis of a frivolous or vexatious complaint is something very serious. This would tarnish the image of the person against whom false, frivolous and vexatious allegations are levelled,” the bench observed in its ruling last week.
Laying down guidance for high courts dealing with petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), the bench framed a four-step test to determine whether criminal proceedings should be quashed.
First, the court must be satisfied that the material relied upon by the accused is of impeccable quality and beyond doubt. It must then assess whether such material, if accepted, is sufficient to dislodge the very foundation of the allegations and persuade a reasonable person that the accusations are false. Third, the court should also consider whether the prosecution or complainant has failed to refute the material placed on record, or whether such material is of a kind that cannot be justifiably contested. Finally, the High Court must determine whether allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the judicial process and fail to serve the ends of justice.
If all these requirements are met, the judgment held, the high court’s judicial conscience should impel it to quash the proceedings, thereby not only protecting the accused from needless harassment but also saving valuable court time.
The ruling came in an appeal against a 2019 order of the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated on the complaint of a woman who alleged rape, unnatural sex, assault and caste atrocity against the accused in 2014 for alleged incidents dating back to 2010.
The complainant filed her case four years after the alleged incidents, also implicating the accused’s parents. The magistrate issued summons under Section 376 (rape) of the IPC, which was later upheld by the high court.
Challenging this, the accused, through senior counsel Rahul Kaushik, argued that he had been in a consensual relationship with the complainant that had soured, and that the case was an abuse of process.
Agreeing, the Supreme Court said the complaint “doesn’t inspire any confidence” and was devoid of specific particulars such as date and place of incident. “There is no good explanation offered why it took four years for the complainant to file a case,” the bench noted.
It added: “Not only the appellant was dragged into the criminal proceedings but even the parents of the appellant were arrayed as accused… Various other offences have been alleged. This itself makes the entire case doubtful.”
The court underscored that while genuine allegations of rape on false promise of marriage must be treated seriously, courts should also guard against its misuse. “In a case where there is a promise of marriage, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust,” the bench said.
Finding the allegations against the accused to be baseless, the court allowed his appeal, set aside the high court’s refusal, and quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Allahabad magistrate.
