Consensual Relationship

 

 

IN THE judgement of the case-Dr Avadesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi and another, delivered on January 12, 2026, at the Delhi High Court, Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma has dealt with Judicial Approach to Consent and Allegations Arising from Failed Relationships and Consequences of its Breakdown and related aspects and reached conclusion that this case does not disclose the commission of offences under section 376 of the IPC or section 3(2)(v)of the SC/ST Act. The material on record clearly reflects that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were known to each other for several years and were involved in a consensual relationship. The WhatsApp conversations exchanged between the parties, which stand duly verified and whose authenticity is not in dispute, indicate mutual affection, voluntary interaction and continued communication even after the alleged incident. The conduct of the prosecutrix, both prior to and subsequent to April 3, 2023, does not support the allegation that the physical relationship was established against her will or without her consent.

 

The allegation of false promise of marriage is also not borne out from the record. There is no material to indicate that any promise of marriage was made by the petitioner at the inception of the relationship with a dishonest or mala fide intention. The WhatsApp conversations do not disclose any assurance of marriage, nor does the complaint allege that consent, if any, was obtained on the basis of such promise prior to the alleged incident. In so far as the invocation of section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is concerned, the essential requirement that the alleged offence must have been committed on the ground that the prosecutrix belonged to a Scheduled Caste is not satisfied. The material on record, including the verified WhatsApp chats, does not reflect any caste- based abuse or conduct suggestive of the offence being motivated by the caste identity of the prosecutrix. Mere allegation, not supported by surrounding circumstances or contemporaneous material, is insufficient to attract the rigors of the said provision. On September 13, 2023, the prosecutrix- ‘K’ lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he had forcibly subjected her to sexual intercourse on April 3, 2023. In her complaint the prosecutrix state that she had known the petitioner since last 3 to 4 years.

 

The HC has pointed out that it is often contended that, within the Indian socio-cultural context, romantic relationships are entered into with an expectation that they would ultimately culminate in marriage, as opposed to certain other societies, where relationships may exist independent of such an expectation. These expectations are largely shaped by social norms, family structures and cultural values. At the same time it cannot be overlooked that an adult, and especially an educated and independent adult, who voluntarily enters into a romantic relationship, after exercising free and conscious choice must be aware of the inherent uncertainties attached to such relationships. It is neither inevitable nor assured that every romantic relationship will result in marriage. Relationsips may end for a variety of personal, practical, or circumstancial reasons, including incompatibility or change in individual priorities. While many individuals are able to accept the breakdown of 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. An educated and independent adult, upon entering into a consensual relationship, must also recognise that the law cannot be invoked to criminalise the mere fear of a relationship. The dissolution of a relationship, by itself, does not give rise to criminal liability. Such matters must be approached with sensitivity, restraint and due respect for the autonomy and choices of both individuals involved. The prosecutrix has alleged that the petitioner used derogatory caste-based remarks against her, both at the time of alleged incident and subsequently thereto.

 

On the basis of these allegations and after verification of the caste-status of the prosecutrix section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act came to be invoked in the present case. Section3(2) (v) of the SC/St Act provides enhanced punishment, where a person, not being member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, commits an offence under the Indian Penal Code, punishable with a term of 10 years or more, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a SC or ST. In the case- Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771, the Supreme Court has observed, “Sine qua non for application of section 3(2)(v) is that an offence must have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of SCs and STs. In the absence of evidence to establish this requirement, section 3(2) would not be attracted.” The HC points out that in the present case, a perusal of the WhatsApp conversations placed on record does not disclose any reference to the caste of the prosecutrix.

 

The chats do not indicate any abuse, humiliation or derogatory remarks directed towards her on the basis of her caste. On the contrary, the communications reflect that the petitioner addressed the prosecutrix in a normal and respectful manner. Further, even after the alleged incident, the WhatsApp exchanges reveal that the prosecutrix continued to communicate with the petitioner in a normal and cordial manner. The tenor of these conversations does not reflect any immediate grievance or distress attributable to caste-based abuse. The subsequent conduct of the prosecutrix, as reflected from the material placed on record, assumes relevance in evaluating whether the offence,if any, was committed on account of her caste identity.

 

In the Delhi High Court’s view, the present case is an example of a failed relationship, wherein the decision of a 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 this case, the prosecutrix has levelled allegations against the petitioner attracting the provisions of section 376 of the IPC and section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Such allegations, by their very nature are very grave and carry serious consequences, with potential to tarnish not only the reputation of the accused but also that of his family. Being satisfied that the present case falls within the parameters warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the CrPC, the Delhi High court has quashed the FIR 904/2023, registered at the Police Station Wazirabad, Delhi and all proceedings arising therefrom.