The Allahabad High Court quashed rape and assault proceedings, observing that long-standing consensual relationships cannot automatically be treated as rape after breakdown, while Justice Vivek Kumar Singh warned against misuse of criminal law and continuation of futile trials lacking evidence of deception from inception.
The Allahabad High Court has quashed a case involving allegations of rape and physical assault, observing that consensual relationships are being criminally targeted after they end. The court held that the mere failure or breakdown of a relationship does not automatically amount to a criminal offence.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh allowed the accused’s request to quash the chargesheet, the cognizance order, and all proceedings of the criminal case. The court cautioned against the “futility” of continuing trials where it amounts to a “gross misuse” of the judicial process.
The case had been registered under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 376 (rape), Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), Section 342 (wrongful confinement), and Section 506 (criminal intimidation). Justice Singh noted that there is an emerging pattern of converting relationship disputes into criminal litigation.
Justice Singh observed,
“This Court has seen in a large number of cases, that there is a growing trend that consensual relationships going on for a prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence,”
Factual Backgrounds:
According to the prosecution, the acquaintance began after the accused allegedly bought a mobile phone for the woman, following which there was a year-long phase of continuous contact and increasing closeness. The woman claimed that the relationship advanced on the understanding and promise of marriage.
As the relationship grew, the complainant alleged that the woman started pressuring the accused to marry her. She further stated that the man delayed repeatedly, made excuses, and ultimately threatened to kill her. She claimed that he forcibly established physical relations on the ground of the promise of marriage. She also alleged that when she later confronted him, she was assaulted and threatened in the presence of his family members.
The defence, however, argued that the relationship was consensual throughout and that the FIR was filed only in retaliation after the relationship stopped working.
Observations of the Court:
In its reasoning, the Allahabad High Court referred to established legal principles to differentiate between a broken promise of marriage and the offence of rape. The court underlined that a consensual physical relationship can be treated as rape only if there is clear evidence that the accused’s initial consent was obtained through deception.
The court noted,
“It is crystal clear that if the parties were in a long-standing and continuous consensual physical relationship, without any element of cheating from the inception, such a relationship would not amount to rape,”
Justice Singh stressed that a promise of marriage cannot be treated as a “misconception of fact” for sexual intercourse unless it is shown that the promise was completely false and made with deceptive intent from the very beginning. Since the prosecution was unable to establish that the accused had no intention to marry at the start of the relationship, the court held that the essential ingredients required for a rape allegation were not present. The court also noted that the alleged marriage promise was “non-est” at the inception of the relationship, meaning it could not be used to impose criminal liability for a breach of promise.
A crucial factor in the court’s decision was the complainant’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). In that statement, the woman indicated that she still wanted to marry the accused.
Also Read: ‘Bundle of Lies’: Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR Filed on False Promise of Marriage
Based on that, the High Court concluded that the criminal case was initiated not because a sexual crime was established, but as leverage to force the accused into marriage.
Adding that the woman was upset with the accused’s conduct and did not want to let him go, the court remarked,
“It appears from her statement that the FIR was lodged by the victim to exert pressure upon the applicant to get married to the victim,”
The court also rejected the additional allegations relating to physical assault, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation. It described the later assault claims as “concocted,” stating that they were unsupported by reliable material and lacked proper particulars.
Concluding that continuing the trial would amount to a “gross misuse of criminal jurisdiction,” the court allowed the application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and quashed the chargesheet along with all ongoing criminal proceedings against the accused.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE