A bench of Justices Manmohan and Manoj Misra held that not every relationship culminates in marriage and an adverse inference that one party has cheated the other cannot be drawn merely because a relationship did not end in marriage.

The Bench made the observations while setting aside the cancellation of a police constable candidate’s provisional selection by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board.

The case concerned Gajula Thirupathi, a candidate provisionally selected for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable, whose selection was cancelled by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board on the ground that a rape on promise of marriage case registered against him in 2014 reflected moral turpitude. Thirupathi had himself disclosed the case in his application form.

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.

When the board first cancelled his selection, a single-judge of the Telangana High Court set it aside and directed the board to reconsider the matter.

On reconsideration, the board cancelled the selection again. The single- judge once again set aside that cancellation and directed appointment. The Division Bench of the Telangana High Court reversed the single judge’s order, holding that compounding of the offence did not amount to a clean acquittal and that the employer was the best judge of suitability for a disciplined force. Thirupathi then approached the Supreme Court.

On the question of pre-marital relationships, the Supreme Court made observations of significant breadth. The bench held that authorities would have to be sensitive to the changing times in the context of pre-marital relationships and that such relationships are common today.

The Court further said that where a relationship between two adults spans a considerable period, there arises a presumption of valid consent.

“Further, where such a relationship spans a considerable period, say a few years, time and again this Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated by one party against the other on a complaint that the victim was lured into physical relationship by a false promise of marriage, because in such a case there would be a presumption that such relationship is based on a valid consent,” the Bench held.

Applying this to the facts before it, the bench noted that Thirupathi and the complainant were neighbours who had known each other for several years.

The bench added that had it been a case of use of force or extension of threat to force a compromise from the victim, the board would have been justified in taking a call on the suitability of the appellant for appointment in a disciplined force. No such material, however, existed on record.

The Court noted that the offence alleged was one of cheating, the principal ingredient of which is deception, and that deception in such a case could only have been established through the testimony of the complainant herself.

It also laid down the standard an employer must meet before denying appointment on the basis of a concluded criminal case.

It held that to form an adverse opinion, the employer must demonstrate (a) evidence/material that the crime was committed and (b) some evidence/material linking the person concerned to the crime.

On the facts of this case specifically, the court noted that there was serious doubts about whether the offence of cheating was committed at all given that the victim alone could have proved its commission and had chosen not to pursue the matter.

Hence, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court division bench’s order and restored the single-judge’s direction for Thirupathi’s appointment.