The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a rape case against a former Army officer who had been in a 16-year relationship with the complainant, reasoning the length of that relationship – during which the two had repeated acts of sexual intercourse – was sufficient to conclude there was no element of force.

The court also rejected the woman’s claim that the sexual relationship between the two had been established on the man’s never-delivered-on promise of marriage.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta also noted the woman – a 39-year-old mother of two, married but estranged from her husband – had filed eight other police cases against eight other men, alleging sexual harassment and rape, between 2014 and 2022.

In each of these cases, the court observed, there were discrepancies in details like the spelling of the woman’s name and other details, and that “the complainant has not cooperated with the investigation and has not appeared before this court despite being served with notice”.

“… (the two) continued in a consensual and intimate sexual relationship over 16 years. At some point, the relationship went sour, leading to the filing of the FIR. No reasonable man would accept the version… that the complainant allowed the accused to establish sexual relations with her over a period of 16 years purely under the misconception of marriage,” the court said.

The top court also remarked on an aspect of the woman’s complaint, in which she said that three years into the relationship the man drugged her unconscious and then raped her.

The court asked why the accused, when having established an ongoing sexual relationship, for over three years, would “be impelled to take the trouble of spiking the drink…”

But what convinced the court, it seemed, was that the complainant filed this particular case only after the finding out the accused was to be married to another woman. “The allegations of the complainant are full of material contradictions and are, ex facie, unbelievable.”

The Supreme Court also asked questions of the Delhi High Court, pointing out it should have acted when the accused had moved it, seeking quashing of proceedings against him.

“Considering the nature of the case and the cumulative circumstances, we are of the opinion that the criminal case against the appellant is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. This is precisely the nature of case where the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers… and should have quashed the proceedings,” the top court said.