The High Court of Gujarat has dismissed an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of a man accused of rape, firmly establishing that long-term, consensual live-in relationships—particularly those documented through written agreements—cannot be treated as cases of rape based solely on a subsequent failure to marry. The decision by a division bench comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani underscores the judiciary’s stance that a mere breach of a marriage promise, occurring after a period of voluntary cohabitation, does not satisfy the legal requirements for criminal liability under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita or the Indian Penal Code.

The dispute originated from a complaint filed at Vadaj Police Station in 2020 by a woman who alleged that her former partner had coerced her into sexual relations through a false promise of marriage. According to the prosecution, the couple had lived together for approximately eight months following the execution of a "maitri karar," or friendship agreement, in August 2019. The complainant argued that the respondent had induced her to enter this arrangement under the pretext of future marriage, subsequently subjecting her to physical assault and sexual exploitation. When the relationship deteriorated, a second agreement was signed in January 2020 to formally dissolve their arrangement, an event the complainant later characterized as having been signed under duress and threats.

In evaluating the evidence, the High Court observed that the judicial system must avoid a pedantic approach to contemporary social arrangements. The court highlighted that both parties were adults who knowingly chose to cohabit in a rented property with the awareness of their surroundings and the knowledge of family members. The court reasoned that the existence of a formal deed, which explicitly declared the relationship to be voluntary and free from coercion, created a significant evidentiary hurdle that the prosecution failed to overcome.

"When two adults, after living together for several months under a written arrangement that itself declared free consent , mutually put an end to that arrangement by a further written instrument that again affirms the absence of coercion, the prosecution case that the relationship was throughout the product of a false promise of marriage and of repeated force becomes difficult to sustain," the court stated in its judgment.

The bench further clarified that the legal weight of the agreement signed in 2019 was limited by the fact that the accused had not yet reached the legal age for marriage at the time. However, this did not transform the relationship into a criminal act. Instead, the court noted that the presence of such documentation, followed by a mutual cancellation deed, provides a record of voluntary intent that contradicts claims of force or systemic deception.

Scrutinizing the Foundations of Consent The court devoted significant attention to the concept of implied consent in long-term cohabitation. The evidence presented during the trial—including the testimony of the complainant’s father, the house owner where the couple resided, and medical reports—did not substantiate the claim of systematic physical abuse. Rather, the testimonies pointed toward a relationship that, while eventually ending in conflict, was established and maintained through the mutual decision-making of two independent individuals. The court noted that the absence of timely complaints or visible signs of distress during the period of cohabitation further weakened the state's narrative of coercion.

"In such a case like a long drawn live-in relationship, occasion may arise where the parties in that relationship express their desire or wish to formalize the same by seal of marriage, but that expression of desire or wish by itself would not be indicative of the relationship being a consequence of that expression of desire or wish," the bench noted.

The justices emphasized that financial independence and the capacity for autonomous decision-making have led to a rise in live-in arrangements. Simply because a relationship reaches an unpleasant conclusion, it does not automatically follow that the initiation of the sexual aspect of that relationship was founded on a "misconception of fact" or fraudulent intent. The court stressed that criminal prosecution is a serious matter that should not be used as a tool to resolve personal disagreements or emotional ruptures following the end of a consensual partnership.

Judicial Limits on Criminalizing Relationship Breakups The appellate court affirmed that the lower court’s original decision to acquit the accused was a "plausible view" supported by the lack of credible evidence regarding the allegations of violence or deceit. By finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's order. The ruling serves as a notable precedent, indicating that courts will look past the surface of an FIR when the factual matrix suggests a history of consensual, adult interaction.

The failure of the investigating agency to recover original versions of the agreements and the fact that several prosecution witnesses turned hostile were also critical factors in the court’s decision. Because the foundation of the case relied on the nature of these agreements, the evidentiary gaps proved fatal to the prosecution’s appeal.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondent stands confirmed. This outcome highlights the judiciary’s move toward recognizing the complexity of modern relationships and protecting the legal principle that criminal law is reserved for acts involving clear, verifiable deception or force, rather than the inevitable disputes that may follow the dissolution of a live-in arrangement. The proceedings are now considered closed, with no further legal recourse suggested by the court's final order.