The Allahabad High Court ruled that a long-standing consensual adulterous relationship without deception does not amount to rape under Section 375 of the IPC. The court emphasized that a promise of marriage does not automatically turn consensual intercourse into rape unless it is proven that the promise was false from the outset, quashing criminal proceedings against the accused.
Prayagraj: In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court observed that a long-standing consensual adulterous physical relationship, without any element of deception from its inception, does not constitute rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 375 defines rape as sexual intercourse with a woman against her consent. The court’s decision came while quashing criminal proceedings against a man from Moradabad, accused of raping a woman on the pretext of a promise to marry her.
The Allahabad High Court clarified that a promise of marriage does not automatically render consensual intercourse as rape, unless it can be proven that the promise was false from the outset. The court emphasized the need to establish that the accused had no intention of fulfilling the promise at the time of making it.
The court stated:
“Each and every promise of marriage would not be considered as a fact of misconception for the purpose of consensual sexual intercourse unless it is established that such promise of marriage was a false promise of marriage on the part of the accused since the beginning of such relationship. Unless it is alleged that from the very beginning of such relationship there was some element of cheating on the part of the accused while making such promise, it would not be treated as a false promise of marriage.”
This ruling highlights the court’s careful distinction between genuine relationships and those involving fraudulent intent.
Read Also: ‘Allahabad HC’ = ‘HC of Uttar Pradesh’- PIL Filed Seeking Renaming
The case originated from a complaint filed by a woman from Moradabad, who accused Shrey Gupta of rape and extortion. According to the FIR lodged at the Mahila Thana in Moradabad, the woman alleged that Gupta had established a physical relationship with her under the pretext of marriage following the death of her husband. She claimed that Gupta had repeatedly promised to marry her but later broke the promise and became engaged to another woman.
The complainant also accused Gupta of extortion, alleging that he had demanded ₹ 50 lakh to prevent the release of a video showing their intimate encounters. Based on these allegations, the trial court took cognizance of the charge sheet filed on August 9, 2018, and booked Gupta under Section 376 (rape) and Section 386 (extortion) of the IPC.
Shrey Gupta moved the high court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), seeking to quash the charge sheet and the entire criminal proceedings. After reviewing the facts, the court observed that the complainant, a widow, had maintained a consensual physical relationship with Gupta for approximately 12-13 years, even while her husband was still alive. The court noted that Gupta was much younger than the complainant and had been employed in her late husband’s business, a fact that indicated that the relationship was consensual and free of deceit.
The court also observed that the complainant exerted undue influence over Gupta, further complicating the matter. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Naim Ahamed vs. State of Haryana, the high court reiterated that not every breach of promise to marry can be treated as a false promise, and it would be unjust to prosecute a person for rape based on such a premise.
The Allahabad High Court referred to established legal precedents, specifically the Supreme Court’s ruling in Naim Ahamed vs. State of Haryana, where it was clarified that every breach of promise to marry should not be construed as a false promise. For a promise of marriage to be considered fraudulent, it must be demonstrated that the accused never intended to marry from the outset of the relationship. This ruling reinforces the legal standard that a mere breach of promise does not equate to rape under Section 376 of the IPC.
In its judgment dated October 1, the Allahabad High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Shrey Gupta, holding that the allegations did not meet the legal criteria for charges of rape or extortion. The court ruled that the consensual nature of the relationship, coupled with the lack of any fraudulent intent on Gupta’s part, negated the grounds for criminal prosecution.
This landmark judgment sets a crucial precedent, emphasizing that consensual relationships, even if they involve a promise of marriage, should not automatically be construed as criminal unless there is clear evidence of deception or fraud. It highlights the importance of distinguishing between genuine relationship issues and those involving criminal misconduct.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
