The Delhi High Court ruled that consensual relationships between adults cannot be criminalised after a breakup. The Court cautioned that criminal law must not become a post-relationship weapon when consent is evident.
Misuse Rape Law After Breakup: The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered for rape under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, observing that the case arose from a failed consensual relationship and not from sexual violence. The Court examined the entire material on record and found that criminal law was invoked after the relationship ended, which amounted to abuse of the legal process.
The case initiated when the complainant filed an FIR alleging that the accused had established physical relations on the promise of marriage and had later made caste-related remarks. She claimed the incident occurred months earlier after she had shifted to Delhi and started meeting him frequently.
While dealing with the allegations, the Court noted that the parties had known each other for nearly four years and were in continuous contact. The Court observed that the relationship developed gradually and involved voluntary interaction.
On consent, the Court reiterated the statutory position and quoted:
“Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act”
The Court found that the WhatsApp chats between the parties showed affection and normal communication even after the alleged incident. It noted that the chats were verified and did not support allegations of force or caste abuse.
Referring to the anticipatory bail order, the Court said:
“It has further been found that there are no allegations regarding the SC/ST Act or forceful sexual assault in the said chats” and also, “the WhatsApp chats between the parties also do not put forth any evidence showing that any sexual assault took place or that casteist remarks have been made by the applicant”
On delay in filing the FIR, the Court noted that the complaint was lodged nearly five months after the alleged incident, during which period the parties remained in contact. The Court held that such delay, when read with continued communication, was relevant while deciding whether criminal proceedings should continue.
Addressing allegations of false promise of marriage, the Court found no material to show that any promise was false at the beginning. It clearly stated that WhatsApp chats did not show any assurance of marriage. The Court observed that a relationship failing later cannot automatically be treated as deception.
The High Court relied on Supreme Court judgments and stated:
“Physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage”
and further warned- “To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice”
The Court also reiterated the settled law and said: “There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex” and stressed that courts must carefully examine whether a promise was false from the start or whether the relationship simply failed later
On misuse of criminal law, the Court made strong observations that:
“A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State”
and cautioned that such misuse burdens courts and destroys lives
While examining the SC/ST Act allegation, the Court relied on Supreme Court precedent:
“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 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes”
and held that mere allegation without supporting material is not enough
Finally, the Court concluded that the case did not disclose any offence and observed that continuing prosecution would amount to abuse of process. It held that the FIR deserved to be quashed and accordingly ordered that all proceedings arising from it be terminated.
This judgment once again reinforces that criminal law cannot be used as a weapon after relationship breakdowns and that serious provisions like rape and SC/ST Act must be applied with responsibility and legal discipline.
Explainatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law / Section | What It Means (Short) | Why Used in This Case |
| Section 376 IPC | Punishment for rape. | FIR alleged rape. Court found relationship consensual. |
| Section 375 IPC | Defines what is rape and consent. | Court examined whether consent was voluntary. |
| Explanation 2 to Section 375 IPC | Consent must be clear and voluntary. | Used to judge if force or free will existed. |
| Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act | Extra punishment if crime is due to caste. | No proof that act was based on caste. |
| Section 164 CrPC | Magistrate records statement. | Victim’s statement was reviewed. |
| Section 91 CrPC | Police can demand evidence. | Mobile phone was sought for verification. |
| Section 482 CrPC | High Court power to quash cases. | FIR was quashed under this power. |
| IPC | Main criminal law of India. | Charges were framed under IPC. |
| CrPC | Criminal procedure law. | Investigation and court process followed. |
| SC/ST Act, 1989 | Law to protect SC/ST communities. | Allegation examined and rejected. |
Case Details
- Case Title: Dr. Avadesh Kumar vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, CRL.M.C. 3/2025
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Bench / Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
- Dates:
- Judgment Reserved On: 18.12.2025
- Judgment Pronounced On: 12.01.2026
- Judgment Uploaded On: 21.01.2026
- Police Station & FIR Details: FIR No. 904/2023
- Police Station: Wazirabad, Delhi
Counsels
- For Petitioner: Mr. Bajinder Singh Subhash Choudhary, Advocate
- For State: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State with SI Abhishek Singh, PS Wazirabad, Delhi
- For Respondent No.2 (Complainant):
- Ms. Tara Narula, Advocate
- Ms. Shivangi Sharma, Advocate
- along with Respondent No.2 in person
Key Takeaways
- Consensual relationships that fail are increasingly being dragged into criminal courts, leaving the accused helpless against serious charges meant for real crimes.
- Delay in complaints and continued contact after alleged incidents expose how personal disappointment is often converted into legal allegations.
- Verified digital evidence like chats can save an innocent person, yet the process itself causes irreversible damage to reputation and life.
- Powerful laws meant for protection are frequently misused, while those falsely accused spend years fighting to prove basic truth.
- The judgment highlights how the system offers relief only after prolonged suffering, showing how easily lives can be shaken by false or exaggerated cases.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.