Physical relationship between consent adults not character flaw, says SC

The Supreme Court has held that a physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot be a ground to draw an adverse impression about the character of the person in that relationship.

A bench of Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra made the observation while directing the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board to appoint a candidate whose selection as a police constable was set aside due to his involvement in a criminal case arising from a failed romantic relationship.

“Physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot and should not by itself be a ground to draw an adverse impression about the character of the person in that relationship. There is no law which prohibits two consenting unmarried adults to have a relationship of their choice,” the bench said.

The top court allowed the appeal filed by the candidate and upheld a Telangana High Court single judge’s order directing reconsideration of his appointment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable.

Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board had cancelled his appointment on the ground that a rape on promise of marriage case registered against him in 2014 reflected moral turpitude.

The case arose from a relationship with a neighbour and was compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015 after both parties reached a settlement. No charge under Section 376 IPC was ever pressed.

Referring to the case, the top court said the appellant and the victim were neighbours and in a relationship for about four years.

“Not every relationship culminates in marriage. Therefore, merely because the relationship did not culminate in marriage is no ground to believe that one party has cheated the other.

“Had it been a case of use of force or extension of threat to force a compromise, the respondent would have been justified in taking a call on the suitability of the appellant for appointment in a disciplined force. However, here there is no material to conclude that the compromise was foisted upon the victim,” the bench said.

The apex court said in criminal jurisprudence, unless the charge is proved in a court of law there shall be a presumption of innocence.

“In the instant case, the offence alleged was one of cheating. One of the ingredients of the offence of cheating is false representation/deception. Whether prosecutrix was deceived into entering a relationship, the prosecutrix alone could have disclosed.

“The public at large cannot tell whether she was deceived by the appellant. In such circumstances, when the prosecutrix chose not to pursue and had led no evidence, rather had expressed her consent to compound the case, there was no occasion for the respondents to read in between lines and draw an adverse inference regarding the character of the appellant,” the bench said.