The Allahabad High Court quashed rape proceedings based on an alleged false promise of marriage, ruling that a long-term consensual relationship between adults cannot later be treated as rape merely because the relationship did not culminate in marriage.
PRAYAGRAJ: The High Court of Allahabad has set aside the criminal proceedings and charge sheet against an accused prosecuted for rape allegedly on the false promise of marriage, holding that a long-term consensual physical relationship between adults cannot be retrospectively treated as rape merely because it did not culminate in marriage.
Justice Avnish Saxena found that continuing the prosecution in this matter would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
Background of the Case:
The matter arose from an FIR lodged on December 3, 2024, at Kotwali Police Station, Rampur, by the complainant against the applicant, Ajay Saini, his father, and his brother. The prosecution’s case was that the complainant, who completed a GNM course in 2019, met the applicant while seeking employment. She alleged the applicant lured her with a job opportunity in Moradabad, took her to a hotel room and administered a stupefying substance in a cold drink.
She claimed the applicant raped her while she was unconscious, and, when she regained consciousness and resisted, promised to marry her. The FIR further alleged that the applicant repeatedly raped her on the false promise of marriage over a four-year period.
The FIR was filed after the complainant learned the applicant was engaged to another woman and, allegedly, after she and her family were abused and threatened by the applicant’s relatives. A charge sheet was filed charging the applicant under Sections 376, 328, 504, 506 and 323 of the IPC.
Contentions of Parties
- Contentions For the Applicant:
Counsel Shri Vinod Singh argued the FIR was false and vindictive following a broken relationship, pointing to a four-year delay in lodging the complaint. The defense highlighted inconsistencies in the complainant’s account about where and how the stupefying substance was given across her FIR, her Section 180 BNSS statement, and her Section 164 CrPC statement.
The defense maintained the core dispute was a failed relationship revealed by the applicant’s intended marriage to another, and relied on the Supreme Court decision in Samadhan S/o Sitaram Manmothe Vs. State of Maharashtra.
- For the State and Complainant:
The Additional Government Advocate and the complainant’s counsel, Shri Surendra Nath Tripathi, maintained the applicant had exploited the complainant continuously for four years beginning from the alleged 2019 incident in Moradabad. They contended the promise of marriage was always false and that the Investigating Officer had unearthed sufficient material to justify the charge sheet against the applicant and his family members.
Court’s Analysis:
Justice Avnish Saxena assessed whether the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer established a prima facie case of rape or whether proceeding further would amount to misuse of process. The Court observed material discrepancies in the complainant’s statements. The FIR lacked particulars as to date, time and place for the 2019 incident.
Her account of the alleged intoxication shifted from a hotel room and a cold drink in the FIR, to a restaurant and a cold drink in the Section 180 BNSS statement, and then to a restaurant and food in her Section 164 CrPC statement. The Court also noted that the complainant, who was educated, continued a relationship with the applicant for four years without initially complaining.
Relying on established Supreme Court authority, the High Court examined the character of the relationship.
The Court cited Ravish Singh Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand:
“…if two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences.”
It also relied on Prashant Vs. NCT of Delhi, which observes:
“A mere break up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship.”
The Court referred to Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra to underscore that where a physical relationship is maintained over a prolonged period, it cannot be conclusively attributed to an alleged promise of marriage.
Also Read: ‘Bundle of Lies’: Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR Filed on False Promise of Marriage
Applying Samadhan S/o Sitaram Manmothe Vs. State of Maharashtra, the High Court quoted the Supreme Court’s warning about misuse of the criminal justice system in relationship disputes:
“…physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage.” “To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice.”
Finding The High Court concluded this was a suitable case to exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings, observing that continuing the criminal case would be futile and constitute a gross misuse of criminal jurisdiction.
Order The Court allowed the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and quashed Charge Sheet No. 213 of 2024, the cognizance order dated January 23, 2025, and the proceedings in Case No. 82 of 2025 (State Vs. Ajay Saini and others) arising from Case Crime No. 221 of 2024, for offences under Sections 376, 328, 504, 506 and 323 IPC, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Rampur, insofar as they concern the applicant.
Case Title: Ajay Saini Versus State of U.P. and Another
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
