“Law Does Not Criminalise Heartbreak”: Karnataka High Court Ends Rape Case

The Karnataka High Court, in a recent decision, quashed criminal proceedings in a rape case filed on the allegation of a false promise to marry, observing that the law does not treat every failed relationship as a criminal offence. Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered the ruling while examining the circumstances of a consensual relationship between two adults.

The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman who alleged that a man had engaged in a sexual relationship with her on the promise of marriage but later refused to marry her. Based on this allegation, criminal proceedings had been initiated under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court closely examined the facts of the case and noted that the relationship between the parties had developed when both were living abroad. They had met in Ireland and remained in a relationship for nearly two years, during which they shared a domestic life.

The complainant had earlier been in a troubled marriage and had a seven-year-old child. After obtaining a divorce, she entered into a live-in relationship with the accused while they were both residing in Ireland. The relationship continued for a considerable period before eventually breaking down.

Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the complaint itself reflected a consensual relationship rather than one based on deception or coercion. The Court pointed out that the allegations did not suggest that the accused had forced the complainant into the relationship.

The Court noted in its order:
“Where two adults of their own volition, engage in consensual sexual relation over a sustained period, the subsequent refusal of the man to marry the woman, howsoever regrettable, does not, ipso facto, transmute such intimacy into the offence of rape as punishable under Section 376 of the IPC.”

The High Court also observed that the relationship had entirely taken place outside India. The intimacy, cohabitation, and shared life between the parties occurred in Ireland, and the complaint essentially arose after the relationship came to an end.

Referring to the nature of the allegations, the Court remarked:
“The complaint read in its entirety does not narrate coercion, deception at inception or force. It speaks of companionship, cohabitation, shared domesticity and consensual intimacy extending over 2 years…The intimacy occurred in Ireland, the cohabitation occurred in Ireland, the shared life occurred in Ireland. What has followed is not an allegation of violence, but an allegation of betrayal. Therefore, it is not a case of having sexual intercourse on deceit from the inception, it is trite that “the law does not criminalize heart break”.”

The Court further clarified the legal position regarding promises of marriage. It stated that a promise becomes legally “false” only when it can be shown that the promise was made dishonestly from the very beginning.

Justice Nagaprasanna explained:
“A promise of marriage becomes “false” in law only when it is shown that the promise was a mere ruse, deceitful stratagem, never intended to be honoured. A subsequent change of mind, emotional incompatibility, familial opposition or mere reluctance does not transmute into criminal intent at inception.”

Considering these factors, the Court held that continuing criminal proceedings would amount to misuse of the justice system. It emphasised that personal disputes arising from failed relationships should not be converted into criminal cases.

While quashing further investigation, the Court observed:
“The criminal justice system an instrument of State power, it cannot be permitted to become a weapon in private disputes arising out of failed relationships. The facts, even if accepted in toto, disclose nothing beyond a relationship that did not culminate into matrimony. To permit investigation in such circumstances would not advance justice, it would distort it.”

Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol and Advocate Mohan Kumar G represented the accused. The State was represented by Additional Special Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha, while Advocate Parameswarappa C appeared for the complainant.