Orissa high court quashes rape case, says criminal trial should not disrupt settled married life

CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has quashed a rape case filed against a man by his former partner, holding that criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle grievances arising from a failed consensual relationship, particularly when such action risks unsettling an established marital life.Considering a criminal miscellaneous case filed by the man, Justice S.K. Panigrahi held that criminal proceedings should not be permitted to operate in a manner that unnecessarily disrupts a settled marriage, particularly when the allegations prima facie arise from the breakdown of a consensual relationship.Accordingly, Justice Panigrahi recently set aside the FIR registered at Cuttack Mahila Police Station in August 2024 along with all consequential criminal proceedings under Sections 376(2)(n), 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC.The complainant had alleged that the man was in a relationship with her and had assured her that he would marry her after consulting his parents. She claimed that he later blocked her calls and social media accounts. After learning that another woman had been chosen for his marriage, she lodged a complaint, leading to registration of the FIR in August 2024.The accused man on the other hand, informed the court that he had already married another woman on November 17, 2023, and that the marriage was subsequently registered on August 13, 2024.

He was arrested in Bihar in November 2024 and later secured bail from a Cuttack court before approaching the high court for quashing of the proceedings.Examining the records, Justice Panigrahi observed that the parties had been in a romantic relationship since 2018 and had shared physical intimacy over a prolonged period. The Judge noted that the relationship appeared to have continued voluntarily for several years without any contemporaneous allegation of coercion, force or exploitation.“The materials on record overwhelmingly indicate that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature,” Justice Panigrahi observed, adding that the complaint was lodged only after the relationship turned sour and the parties drifted apart.A significant factor considered by the court was man’s subsequent marriage. Justice Panigrahi observed that continuation of the criminal proceedings stemming from a past consensual relationship was likely to cause serious prejudice to his existing matrimonial life and family circumstances.Concluding that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not constitute the offences alleged, the high court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings on May 22, in the interest of justice.