Promise of Marriage vs. Consent: Key Takeaways from Lalu Yadav’s Supreme Court Case

This article has been written by Sourajit Roychowdhury, a diligent and aspiring legal scholar currently pursuing  BA-LLB(H) course, at Amity University, Kolkata.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

Criminal Appeal No. of 2024

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9371 of 2018 

Lalu Yadav …Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. …Respondent(s)

BENCH – C.T. Ravikumar, Sanjay Karol

INTRODUCTION –

The case of Lalu Yadav v. The State of Uttar Pradesh examines the complex legal intersection between consensual relationships and criminal allegations in the context of promises of marriage. This case highlights the Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence on distinguishing between true cases of rape and instances of consensual physical relationships where marriage was discussed but did not materialize. The Court was tasked with examining whether consensual physical relations maintained over an extended period, where both parties lived together as husband and wife, could be retroactively classified as rape based on an unfulfilled promise of marriage.

The judgment is significant as it explores the essential difference between breach of promise to marry and intercourse obtained through deception, emphasizing the importance of establishing fraudulent intent from the beginning rather than a subsequent change of mind. The Court ultimately quashed the criminal proceedings, finding that the facts revealed a case of prolonged consensual cohabitation rather than sexual relations obtained through deception.

FACTS OF THE CASE –

The case originated when a First Information Report (FIR) was filed by the complainant against Lalu Yadav under Section 376 (Rape) of the Indian Penal Code[1]. The key facts that emerged from the complaint and subsequent proceedings were:

1. Initial Relationship

– The complainant and the accused had known each other for a considerable period

– They developed a relationship which led to physical intimacy

– Both parties were adults and capable of providing consent

2. Nature of Cohabitation

– The parties lived together as husband and wife for an extended period

– Their relationship was known to their social circle

– They maintained a domestic relationship akin to marriage

– The physical relations between them were consensual throughout this period

3. Pregnancy and Subsequent Events

– During their cohabitation[2], the complainant became pregnant

– This pregnancy was a result of their consensual relationship

– The relationship eventually deteriorated

– When marriage did not materialize, the complainant filed criminal charges

4. 4. Legal Proceedings

– An FIR was registered against the accused under Section 376 IPC

– The complainant alleged that consent for physical relations was obtained under the false promise of marriage

– The accused approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings

– The primary contention was that this was a case of consensual relationship rather than rape

5. Critical Aspects

– There was no evidence of force or coercion

– The relationship was maintained over a significant period

– Both parties were aware of the nature of their relationship

– The complaint was filed after the relationship ended

These facts formed the foundation for the Supreme Court’s analysis of whether the case merited criminal proceedings under Section 376 IPC, or whether it was essentially a case of a consensual relationship that ended unsuccessfully.

ARGUMENTS –

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT (STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH)

The State of Uttar Pradesh, as the respondent, argued that the criminal proceedings against Lalu Yadav should not be quashed. The key arguments put forth by the respondent were:

1. The complainant’s consent was obtained under the false pretext of marriage, making it a case of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Even though the parties lived together for an extended period, the initial consent was vitiated by the accused’s deceptive promise of marriage.
2. The prolonged nature of the physical relationship does not negate the fact that it was obtained through false promises. The Supreme Court should not condone such behavior, as it sets a dangerous precedent of allowing offenders to escape punishment.
3. The complainant’s pregnancy was a direct consequence of the accused’s criminal actions, and the Court should not dismiss the gravity of the offense merely because the parties cohabited for some time.
4. Allowing the quashing of the criminal case would undermine the legal protections available to women against sexual exploitation, even in the guise of a relationship. The State argued that the Court must uphold the complainant’s right to seek justice.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER (LALU YADAV)

In his petition to the Supreme Court, Lalu Yadav argued that the criminal proceedings against him should be quashed[3], as the facts reveal a case of consensual relationship rather than rape. The key arguments put forth by the petitioner were:

1. The physical relationship between the parties was consensual throughout, and there was no evidence of force, coercion, or deception. Both individuals were aware of the nature of their relationship and willingly engaged in it.
2. The prolonged period of cohabitation, where the parties lived together as husband and wife, establishes that this was a consensual domestic arrangement, not a situation where consent was obtained through false promises.
3. The pregnancy was a result of their consensual physical intimacy and should not be used to classify the relationship as non-consensual retroactively. Consensual sex does not automatically transform into rape merely because a marriage does not materialize.
4. Quashing the criminal proceedings would not undermine the legal protections for women, as this case is distinct from instances where consent is truly obtained through deception or under pretenses. The petitioner argued that the Court should recognize the difference between a breach of promise to marry and rape.
5. The petitioner contended that continued criminal prosecution in such a case would be an abuse of the legal process and would set a dangerous precedent of criminalizing consensual relationships.

COURTS REASONING –

The Court’s legal reasoning was anchored in the principle that criminal charges must be substantiated by a clear prima facie case. In this instance:

• The investigation into offense under Section 313 (Abetment)[4] was halted due to insufficient evidence, effectively weakening the foundation of the FIR.
• The duration of the alleged relationship (over five years) and the mutual cohabitation suggested consent, thereby challenging the applicability of Section 376 (Rape).
• The delay in registering the FIR (over five years) raised questions about the credibility and spontaneity of the allegations.
• The Court found no substantial evidence indicating that the complainant consented to the physical relationship under any misconception or coercion, as alleged.

By applying these legal principles, the Court concluded that the FIR was unfounded and that proceeding with criminal charges would constitute an abuse of the judicial process.

PRECEDENT ANALYSIS –

The Supreme Court in Lalu Yadav v. The State of Uttar Pradesh relied on several precedents to inform its decision-making process. These precedents provide important context and legal principles that are relevant to the case at hand.

1. Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar (2005): This case established that the mere breach of a promise to marry does not automatically amount to rape. The Court differentiated between a false promise to marry and a subsequent change of mind, emphasizing the need to establish fraudulent intent from the beginning.
2. Pradeep Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar and Another (2014): The Court in this case held that prolonged sexual relations between the parties, even if initially based on a promise of marriage, cannot be retroactively classified as rape if the relationship was otherwise consensual.
3. Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003): The Supreme Court in this case recognized that a mature woman’s decision to enter into a sexual relationship based on a promise of marriage should be respected, unless there is clear evidence of deception or coercion.
4. Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013): This precedent underscored that the distinction between rape and a breach of promise to marry lies in the presence of the accused’s malafide intention from the inception of the relationship.
5. Rishikesh Sharma v. State of Bihar (2013): The Court in this case emphasized that prolonged intimate relations, with the knowledge and consent of both parties, should not be viewed as rape merely because the marriage did not eventually take place.

These precedents collectively establish key principles that the Supreme Court relied upon in analyzing the facts of Lalu Yadav v. The State of Uttar Pradesh. They highlight the need to carefully distinguish between actual cases of rape and situations where consent was initially present, even if a marriage did not materialize subsequently.

Some other precedents that Supreme Court’s judgment extensively referenced pivotal precedents to substantiate its decision include –

• Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate: Established that High Courts possess the authority to exercise judicial review in criminal matters under both Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. ensuring the prevention of judicial abuse.
• Ajit Singh – Muraha v. State of U.P. and Satya Pal v. State of U.P.: These Full Bench decisions underscored that interference with investigations is unwarranted unless the offense is not prima facie discernible or there are statutory restrictions impeding police powers.
• State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors.: Highlighted the categories of cases where Section 482 can be invoked to prevent abuse of the legal process, including instances where allegations lack prima facie merit.
• Shivashankar alias Shiva v. State of Karnataka and Anr: Emphasized the difficulty in sustaining rape charges in prolonged relationships where consent issues are ambiguous and evidence suggests mutual cohabitation.
• Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi): Determined that allegations of rape based on false promises of marriage require substantial evidence to demonstrate coercion or misconception, especially when relationships have a long-standing nature.

JUDGEMENT –

 THE COURT STATED IN ITS JUDGEMENT – “Now, having bestowed our anxious consideration to the decisions referred supra with reference to the factual situations obtained in the case at hand, we are of the considered view that the High Court has palpably gone wrong in not considering the question whether the allegations in the complaint reveals prima facie case that the complainant had given her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under misconception of fact, as alleged, or whether it reveals a case of consensual sex…”

In its judgment in the case of Lalu Yadav v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, Lalu Yadav, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (Rape).

The Court, after a thorough examination of the facts and the precedents, concluded that this case did not qualify as rape, but rather represented a situation of prolonged consensual physical relations between the parties. The key aspects of the Court’s judgment are:

1. The Court found that the initial consent for the physical relationship was not obtained through any false promises or deception, as both parties were aware of the nature of their relationship.
2. The extended period of cohabitation, where the complainant and the accused lived together as husband and wife, was deemed to be a clear indication of a consensual domestic arrangement, rather than a case of rape.
3. The Court emphasized that the mere fact that the marriage did not ultimately take place does not retroactively transform a consensual relationship into a non-consensual one, unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent from the inception.
4. The Court held that continuing the criminal proceedings in this case would amount to an abuse of the legal process and would set a dangerous precedent of criminalizing consensual relationships where the parties’ expectations about marriage were not fulfilled.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court exercised its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed the FIR and the subsequent criminal proceedings against Lalu Yadav.

This judgment holds significant implications for future criminal proceedings in India:

• Strengthened Judicial Oversight:Reinforces the High and Supreme Courts’ authority to oversee lower court decisions, ensuring that only cases with substantial evidence proceed.
• Protection against Misuse:Serves as a safeguard against the frivolous use of criminal charges, particularly in cases involving personal relationships and consent.
• Clarification of Section 482:Provides clearer guidelines on when and how inherent powers can be exercised to quash legal proceedings, thereby offering a blueprint for similar future cases.
• Encouragement for Prompt Legal Action:Highlights the importance of timely filing of FIRs to maintain the integrity and reliability of criminal allegations.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS –

The judgement in Lalu Yadav v. The State of Uttar Pradesh brings forth an important issue regarding the balance between guaranteeing individual protection from sexual exploitation and respect for autonomy for consensual adults in personal relationships. The very fact that the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused is consistent with existing legal precedents; however, it also generates deeper inquiry into the subtleties involved in cases where consensual relationships are followed by allegations of rape.

But the Court rightly observed that long-standing cohabitation and domestic arrangements suggested a consensual relationship instead of one in which the consent is obtained by misrepresentation. The precedents cited in a bid to draw a dividing line between a case of breach of promise to marry and real cases of rape provide a sound legal basis for such determinations. Criminalizing all failed marriage prospects can, in fact, have a chilling effect on personal autonomy and set a dangerous precedent. However, the judgement raises issues concerning the purported vulnerability of complainants in such cases. Nevertheless, even when the relationship is initially seemingly consensual, the dynamics of countervailing power and societal pressures attending marriage proposals combine to render cases highly tricky in which true and full consent could very well be in doubt. Thus, the focus by the Court on the lack of any evidence of “fraudulent intent” ab initio, again, begs the question of how to consider the changing dynamics of power and the nature of positively evolving perceptions over the course of time. Furthermore, the judgement does not get into the detail of the pregnancy of the complainant and how that factor is said to factor into the analysis. While the Court rightly points out that consensual sex does not suddenly sport the black stain of rape, it should have examined, however briefly, the added dimension of implications raised by a resulting pregnancy.

This case draws attention to the necessity of more nuanced and contextually sensitive approaches in determining allegations of rape against the background of relationships and personal choices. The Court could have been more instructive in deciding whether there was true consent, focusing on power dimensions, and emphasizing the issue of pregnancy.

Recommendations:

1. Establish clearer guidelines for distinguishing between true cases of rape and breaches of promise to marry, taking into account the evolving nature of consent and power dynamics within relationships.
2. Provide more comprehensive consideration of the implications of pregnancy resulting from the alleged non-consensual relationship.
3. Encourage a holistic analysis that balances the protection of individuals from sexual exploitation with the respect for personal autonomy in consenting relationships.
4. Facilitate discussions and expert consultations to develop a more comprehensive jurisprudence on the intersection of consent, relationships, and criminal allegations.

Overall, the Lalu Yadav v. The State of Uttar Pradesh case highlights the need for a nuanced, context-sensitive, and evolving legal approach to navigating the complex interplay between consent, relationships, and criminal liability.

CONCLUSION

While broad strokes account for consent-based cohabitations, the case which is endowed with the indigenous name of Lalu Yadav v. The State of Uttar Pradesh has now added a significant piece to the baggage of sexual offences and rape. The Court thus quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused, reaffirming the principle that living together under domestic circumstances does not automatically constitute a clear case of rape if based upon the aegis of consensus and mutual agreement.

The commendable attempt of the learned Judge to reach equilibrium between individual rights and autonomy in intimate relationships has been through reliance upon precedent case law of decided courts with classification distinguishing between, as noted above, breach of promise of marriage on the one hand and rapes of sexual exploitation on the other hand. Thus, the assumption was premised on the assumption that couple relationships can only be criminalize-able if the pact failed, but that too, quite definitely, without being held hostage to any consideration of misconduct or coercion in the very inception of the relationships.

The case also underlines what might have been better contextualized and nuanced judicial approaches to accusations of rape in its thematic bid contextualized within the kaleidoscope of relationships. Deference to changing power dynamics, social pressures, and issues of pregnancy could have opened out, well in time, complex questions of consent and helped facilitate evenhanded innocence of justice among all parties.

It is all the more important that, going forward, the law develops firm guidelines or legal principles for deciphering the required framework within which consent, relationships, and criminal responsibility meet. This, it can further be argued, should embrace expert discussion, adaptation to progressive social-thinking, and, balancing exploitation with personal autonomy in choosing intimates.

All said and done, this case from the jurisprudence of Lalu Yadav v. The State of Uttar Pradesh stands as a very agenda-setting motif for the legal fraternity to keep its thinking engaged over sensitive matters so as to make any endeavor for justice harmonious with the changing societal and ethical milieu which goes into the way of human relations and referable exercise of consent.

[1] Whoever commits rape on a women up to twelve years of age shall be punished with death, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than fourteen years but which may extend to imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remained of that persons natural life

[2] the state of living together and having a sexual relationship without being married

[3] Dismissed

[4] Gives the accused the power to be examined by the court during a trial or inquiry. The accused is not required to take an oath, and they are not liable for punishment if they refuse to answer questions or give false answers. The court can use the accused’s answers as evidence for or against them