The Court highlighted that long-term consensual activity despite awareness of marital status was material to evaluate claims of coercion or misconception of fact. (AI image)

The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR alleging rape, criminal intimidation and related offences against a pilot, holding that the material on record indicated a long-term consensual relationship between two adults and did not justify continuation of criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that evolving social realities must inform judicial evaluation of interpersonal relationships and cautioned against retrospectively criminalizing a failed consensual relationship as sexual assault.Delivering judgment on 10 September 2025 in CRL.M.C. 1085/2022, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma exercised inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to set aside FIR No. 655/2020 registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj South under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings.At the outset of its reasoning, the Court noted the evolving circumstances under which courts review adult relationships:“If two adults, even though one may be married, decide to live together or to have a sexual relationship, they must also take responsibility for the consequences of such a decision. Judges cannot impose their personal morality on the parties before them. At the same time, courts cannot ignore how educated adults themselves now look at relationships through a prism that was not acceptable in earlier times.”It further stressed:“It cannot lag behind or apply an outdated intent to a society that has already moved forward… cases involving human relationships stand slightly on a different footing… they cannot be approached with a rigid or outdated lens.”Factual Background:The complaint (leading to an FIR) was lodged by a cabin crew member who claimed that she first encountered the petitioner, a pilot, in 2018, during a flight assignment. In her narrative, he approached her later, developed a relationship, she alleged that during a hotel meeting in May 2018, he intoxicated her and sexually assaulted her. She further claimed that he lured her to have further sexual intercourse with her under the promise of marriage, threatened to abuse intimate content, and that he coerced her to have a series of abortions throughout the relationship.Investigation recorded her medical examination, statement under Section 164 CrPC, and recovery of digital devices from the petitioner. The hospital records confirmed medical termination procedures, and employment and travel data were gathered. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed and proceedings were pending consideration of charge before the Sessions Court when the quashing petition was moved.Submissions before the CourtPetitioner’s CaseThe petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual in the beginning and the charges came following its breakdown. Reliance was placed on WhatsApp messages and photographs, which were said to demonstrate voluntary involvement and intimacy, including exchanges immediately surrounding the first alleged incident.It was further argued that the prosecutrix had been aware of the petitioner’s marital status at an early stage of the relationship and nevertheless continued her association with him. Concern was also raised by counsel on the fact that the complaint was not lodged within two years and as such, the delay undermined the merit of the allegations. It was further stated that the medical abortions of the pregnancy were not done under coercion but on a voluntary basis and there was material differences in the version presented in the FIR and the statement made under Section 164 CrPC. On this basis, it was argued that the prosecution narrative was unreliable and insufficient to justify continuation of criminal proceedings.State and Prosecutrix ResponseThe State opposed the petition, on the ground that the allegations disclosed serious offences and that the chargesheet already contained supporting material including medical and documentary evidence. It argued that that the evaluation of chats and photos was a trial matter rather than a quashing issue.In her reply, the prosecutrix reiterated allegations of sexual assault under intoxication, continued relations under false promise of marriage, and coercion through threats involving abuse of private material.Judicial Examination of Consent and Relationship DynamicsIn evaluating the opposing arguments, the Court accepted the factual narrative and stated that the prosecutrix herself acknowledged learning soon after the initial encounter, that the petitioner was married. Despite this, she still continued the relationship for more than two years including traveling and having physical relationships in various places.The Court recorded:“Notwithstanding this knowledge, she continued to voluntarily maintain physical relations with the petitioner until August 2020, when the relationship finally broke down…”It also observed that communications between the parties reflected mutual intimacy:“The conversations preceding the incident… suggested that the relationship between the parties was voluntary and consensual from the very outset.”Analyzing the legal context of consent, the Court referred to the Supreme Court precedents such as Deepak Gulati v State of Haryana, Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v State of Maharashtra and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v State of UP to reemphasize the difference between consensual relations, breach of promise, and deception amounting to rape.Placing the issue within a broader jurisprudential context, the Court emphasized that the law must evolve alongside social realities, observing:“Law cannot be static; it must move with changing social norms… cases involving human relationships cannot be approached with a rigid or outdated lens.”The court further observed that consent is a matter of circumstantial attention and that criminal responsibility is only created under circumstances where the deception during the inception is proved.Going beyond the doctrinal analysis, the Court addressed the social aspect of such conflicts, which meant that the assessment of law had to be based on modern realities:“The justice system… must also look at such cases through the same prism – not being judgmental, but recognising the responsibility that flows from adult choices.”Further, it observed:“When a woman voluntarily enters into such a relationship, she must also accept the repercussions that may arise from it.”The Court highlighted that long-term consensual activity despite awareness of marital status was material to evaluate claims of coercion or misconception of fact. It believed that criminal law could not be automatically turned into a source of emotional or relationship breakdown.Using these principles on the facts, the Court observed that the relationship lasted over two years and, in the process, the parties travelled together, lived together in several occasions and engaged in physical relations in various places. It also took into account the documentary evidence which was on record such as messages between the parties, which showed that they had engaged each other and were intimate as opposed to confronting or protesting. The Court also noted that the exchanges that the petitioner relied on did not indicate any contemporaneous claim of assault. Combined with these conditions, the Bench came to the conclusion that it seemed that the prosecutrix was an active participant in the relationship and that the charges, which had been evaluated at the threshold stage, did not reveal factors that would be the subject of prosecution on the charge of rape.The Bench stated:“Once such choices are made by educated adults, the responsibility of those choices must also be acknowledged, and it is not open to one party… to retrospectively paint it as a crime of sexual assault.”Concluding that any further prosecution would be an abuse of the process, the Court declared the case to be within the jurisdiction of inherent power to proceed under Section 482 CrPC. It accordingly set aside FIR No. 655/2020 lodged at the Police Station Vasant Kunj South pursuant to Sections 376 and 506 IPC and all resultant proceedings that arose thereof. The Court concluded that the material indicated a consensual relationship rather than circumstances warranting prosecution for rape, bringing the matter to a close at the threshold stage.CRL.M.C. 1085/2022 GAUTAM SHARMA v. GOVT.OF NCT, DELHI & ANRFor the Petitioner: Mr. Samrat Nigam, Mr. Ajay Dabas, Ms. Priyanka Dagar, Ms. Arpita Rawat, Advocates.For the Respondents: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with Ms. Puja Mann, Advocate and with SI Nehal along with Main IO Inspector Jagrup Singh.(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)