The Allahabad High Court recently observed that failed relationships and the resultant emotional turmoil are increasingly leading to the misuse of criminal law [Arun Kumar Mishra v State of UP]..“It is increasingly observed that personal fallouts and emotional discord are being given a criminal colour, through the invocation of penal laws, particularly in the aftermath of failed intimate relationships,” the Court said.Justice Krishan Pahal made the observation while granting bail to a 42-year-old man accused of rape by a woman. .In the order dated April 9, the Court said that it was imperative to highlight the changing dynamics and “depleting standards” of sexual relationships in contemporary society.“The victim, with full and conscious knowledge of the applicant's previous marital history-having been married thrice before, chose to establish a corporeal relationship with him. This relationship, while mutual and consensual during its subsistence, did not conform to the traditionally accepted institution of marriage or any form of legally recognized union. While the emotional and romantic dynamics may not appear traditionally polyamorous, the relationship is consensual and involves two mature individuals - the alleged victim, approximately 25 years old, and the applicant, about 42,” the Court said..It added that the case was reflective of a broader societal shift where the sanctity and solemnity once associated with intimate relationships have seen a marked decline.“The prevalence of transient and uncommitted relationships, often formed and dissolved at will, raises critical questions about individual responsibility and the misuse of legal provisions, especially when such relationships turn sour,” the Court further said..In the present case, the accused was booked by the police last year on the complaint that he had raped the woman, video recorded the act and then started blackmailing her. He had also allegedly promised to marry her but subsequently refused to do so. However, his counsel told the Court that the victim was in a relationship with the man and had visited several places with him. The accused also accepted that he is already married. However, he denied the allegation that he had married three women earlier."The instant case may fall within the category of immorality, but it cannot be termed as penal, which implies that the act in question might be considered unethical or wrong by societal or moral standards, but it does not necessarily violate any law that prescribes a legal punishment,” the counsel argued..On the contrary, the counsel representing the victim described the accused as a “Casanova” and said he is used to luring different women into relationships. It was also submitted that he is a rich man who has misused his wealth and clout to ruin the life of the victim.“The statements of two other ladies in addition to his wife have been recorded by the Investigating Officer who have categorically stated that applicant was married to one XXXX and subsequent to it married two other ladies and had children from each of them,” the Court was told..Considering the arguments, the Court observed that the criminal case, instituted after the breakup, appears to be a product of an emotional aftermath rather than a bona fide grievance of criminal wrongdoing.The timing and circumstances surrounding the filing of the complaint suggest a retaliatory motive rather than a genuine pursuit of justice, it added.“Not all socially or ethically questionable actions warrant legal intervention. It also reflects a foundational principle in jurisprudence — the law does not enforce all aspects of morality,” the Court further said..Therefore, it proceeded to grant bail to the accused.“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that it is also admitted to both the parties that Sections 313 & 377 I.P.C. have been deleted coupled by the fact that FIR is delayed by about five months and the victim being a well qualified lady, the case law referred and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed,” the Court ordered.Senior Advocate Anup Triwedi and advocate Nitin Chandra Mishra represented the accused.Advocate Devendra Singh represented the complainant. Advocate Sunil Kumar represented the State..[Read Order]
