Delhi HC Quashes Rape FIR in Consensual Case

The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR accusing a pilot of rape and criminal intimidation, ruling that the material on record pointed to a long-term consensual relationship between two adults.

In its judgment dated September 10, 2025, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma exercised powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to set aside FIR No. 655/2020 registered at Vasant Kunj South police station under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC, along with all related proceedings.

Court’s observations on adult relationships

The Court noted that evolving social realities must inform judicial evaluation of interpersonal relationships. It observed that when two consenting adults choose to enter into a relationship, even if one is married, they must also accept the consequences of that choice.

The Bench cautioned against retrospectively criminalising a failed consensual relationship as sexual assault. It stated that courts should not impose personal morality and must assess such cases in the context of changing societal norms.

Allegations in the complaint

The complainant, a cabin crew member, alleged that she met the petitioner in 2018 during a flight assignment. She claimed that he later developed a relationship with her and, during a hotel meeting in May 2018, intoxicated and sexually assaulted her.

She further alleged that he continued physical relations under a false promise of marriage, threatened to misuse private material, and coerced her into undergoing multiple medical terminations of pregnancy.

After investigation, including medical examination and digital evidence collection, a chargesheet was filed. The case was pending consideration of charges before the Sessions Court when the accused moved the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR.

Defence arguments

The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual from the beginning and that the complaint was filed after the relationship ended. He relied on WhatsApp messages and photographs to demonstrate voluntary involvement and mutual intimacy.

It was also argued that the complainant was aware of his marital status early in the relationship and continued the association for over two years. The defence pointed to delays in filing the complaint and alleged inconsistencies between the FIR and her statement under Section 164 CrPC.

State’s stand

The State opposed the plea, arguing that the allegations disclosed serious offences and that supporting medical and documentary material had been collected. It maintained that evaluation of electronic communication should be left to trial.

The complainant reiterated that the relationship was based on deception and coercion.

Judicial reasoning

After reviewing the record, the Court observed that the complainant had acknowledged learning of the petitioner’s marital status soon after the initial encounter but continued the relationship until August 2020.

The Bench noted that communications between the parties reflected mutual intimacy and did not indicate a contemporaneous complaint of assault. It referred to Supreme Court precedents distinguishing consensual relationships and breach of promise from cases of deception amounting to rape.

The Court emphasised that consent must be assessed in context and that criminal liability arises only when deception exists at the inception of the relationship.

It concluded that the material suggested a consensual relationship rather than circumstances warranting prosecution for rape. Continuing the criminal proceedings, the Court held, would amount to abuse of the legal process.

Final order

The High Court accordingly quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, bringing the matter to a close at the threshold stage.

The ruling reiterates that in cases involving adult relationships, courts must carefully examine evidence before allowing criminal prosecution to proceed.