New Delhi, Feb 5 (NationPress) The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed an FIR and halted criminal proceedings against an advocate from Chhattisgarh, who was accused of repeatedly raping a woman under the false pretense of marriage. The court determined that the allegations stemmed from a consensual relationship between two adults that subsequently soured.

A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that pursuing the prosecution would constitute an abuse of legal processes, thus overturning the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision to maintain the FIR filed under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC.

The FIR was initiated following a complaint from a female advocate, who claimed that the accused had repeatedly assaulted her under the guise of marriage promises.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the apex court remarked that "the circumstances of this case clearly reflect a typical situation of a consensual relationship becoming acrimonious."

The court noted that the complainant was a married individual with a ten-year-old child, and divorce proceedings were pending during the relevant period.

"It is inconceivable to argue that the complainant was eligible for marriage to the accused on 18.09.2022," the Supreme Court stated, emphasizing that marriage during an existing marriage is prohibited under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955.

"The law expressly forbids bigamous marriages, thus preventing individuals from entering into a second marriage while still in their first," the ruling affirmed.

The Supreme Court concluded that the 33-year-old complainant, being an advocate, could not be perceived as a naïve or gullible woman incapable of making informed decisions.

"It is challenging to accept that the complainant, who is also an advocate, was unaware of this established legal principle and consequently misled by the accused into engaging in sexual relations under false pretenses of marriage," the court held.

Reiterating its previous judgments, the Supreme Court noted that not every breach of a marriage promise constitutes rape, and emphasized the need for courts to differentiate between actual cases of sexual violence and disputes arising from failed consensual relationships.

"A mere breakup in a consensual relationship should not trigger criminal charges," the bench warned, highlighting a concerning trend where failed relationships are improperly framed in a criminal context.

Describing the pursuit of the prosecution as an abuse of the judicial process, the apex court asserted that the elements of Section 376(2)(n) IPC were not satisfied, even if the allegations were taken at face value.

"The details of this case clearly indicate a consensual relationship that has gone awry," the court noted, urging both parties to avoid dragging the state into their personal conflicts.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court annulled the FIR, the charge sheet, and the pending sessions case, concluding that it was "neither expedient nor in the interest of justice" to continue the prosecution.