The Delhi High Court has quashed a rape case against a pilot, observing that an educated woman who consciously continues a relationship with a married man for over two years must also “take responsibility for that choice.” The court stated that the law cannot be used as a remedy for a consensual relationship that eventually turns sour.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who quashed the FIR registered in October 2020 at Vasant Kunj South police station under sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code against pilot Gautam Sharma.
A Relationship Under the Microscope
The case revolved around allegations made by a former flight attendant. She alleged that the accused, a pilot she met in 2018, first raped her in a Delhi hotel after spiking her drink in May 2018. She claimed that he subsequently concealed his marital status and maintained a physical relationship with her under the false pretext of marriage, forcing her to undergo three abortions between 2018 and 2020. She also alleged blackmail using intimate photographs.
However, the court’s analysis of the evidence, including WhatsApp chats and the timeline of events, painted a different picture. Justice Sharma noted that the complainant was aware of the petitioner’s marital status “from the very inception” immediately after the first alleged incident. Despite this knowledge, she continued the relationship for over two and a half years, accompanying him on trips to Goa, Coorg, and Ooty, residing with him at various locations, and undergoing medical procedures.
The WhatsApp chats exchanged between the parties immediately after the first incident in May 2018 were particularly crucial. The court noted that these conversations “clearly reflect a consensual relationship and voluntary participation of the prosecutrix” and showed that both parties discussed and expressed that they had enjoyed the act.
The Law on Consent and False Promises
In her detailed order, Justice Sharma referred to several Supreme Court judgments to draw the legal distinction between rape and consensual sex. The ruling cited Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana to highlight the difference between a “mere breach of a promise” and “not fulfilling a false promise.” The court emphasized that an accused can be convicted only if it is proven that he had mala fide intentions and clandestine motives from the very beginning.
The court concluded that this was not a case of a false promise of marriage but a long-term, voluntary association between two adults. “When a woman voluntarily enters into such a relationship, she must also accept the repercussions that may arise from it,” Justice Sharma observed.
The judgment also made a powerful statement on the need for law to evolve with society. “Judges, too, are part of this changing society, and the justice system cannot remain detached from these realities… Judges cannot impose their personal morality on the parties before them,” the court stated.
A Precedent on Personal Accountability
Allowing the petition filed by the accused, the court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, finding the continuation of the case to be an abuse of the process of law. The court held that the allegations, when read with the documentary evidence, did not make out a case of rape or sexual assault but revealed a relationship that was “consensual from inception.”
This ruling reinforces the legal principle that not every failed relationship can be retroactively classified as a crime. It places a significant emphasis on informed adult consent and the responsibility individuals bear for their conscious choices within interpersonal relationships, marking a nuanced interpretation of consent in modern dating dynamics.
Frequently Asked Questions: The Legal Distinction Between Rape and Consensual Sex
What is the core legal difference between rape and consensual sex?
The core legal difference hinges entirely on consent. Under Indian law (Section 375 of the IPC), rape is defined as sexual intercourse without a woman’s consent. Consensual sex, by contrast, occurs with her full and voluntary agreement.
However, the key lies in understanding what constitutes valid consent. The law states that consent must be given willingly with an understanding of the nature of the act. It is not merely the absence of a “no,” but the presence of a voluntary and informed “yes.” If consent is obtained through force, threat, misconception of fact, or when a woman is of unsound mind or intoxicated, it is legally invalid and the act qualifies as rape.
If a man promises marriage but later breaks up, is it considered rape?
This is a complex area and depends entirely on the man’s intention at the time the promise was made. The breach of a promise alone is not rape. The courts make a crucial distinction:
Mere Breach of Promise:Â If a man genuinely intended to marry a woman but later could not due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g., family pressure, change of heart), the relationship is considered consensual. The subsequent breakup is a breach of promise, which is a civil wrong, not a criminal offense of rape.
False Promise from the Inception: If it can be proven that the man never intended to marry the woman and only made the promise to deceive her into having sexual relations, then the consent is considered vitiated by a “misconception of fact.” In this case, the sexual intercourse is deemed non-consensual and amounts to rape.
 Does a long-term relationship imply consent and negate a rape charge?
Not automatically, but it is a significant factor considered by courts. A long-term relationship is powerful evidence of sustained consent. As seen in the Delhi HC judgment, if a woman, aware of all relevant facts (like the man’s marital status), continues to be in a physical relationship for a prolonged period, travels with him, and shares a life, it strongly indicates that the relationship was voluntary and consensual.
The courts reason that consent in such cases is not just for a single act but is “continuous” and “behavioural.” Therefore, when such a relationship ends, one party cannot retrospectively withdraw the consent that was willingly given for years and allege that the entire relationship was rape. The burden of proof shifts to the complainant to show that her continued participation was due to ongoing coercion or deception, not her own conscious choice.