The Allahabad High Court has observed that a long-term consensual relationship between two adults cannot be treated as rape merely because a promise to marry was ultimately not fulfilled.
In a significant ruling, the court quashed the entire criminal proceedings pending before a trial court against an accused facing charges, including rape. The order was passed by a single-judge bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh while allowing a petition filed by Sanjay Saroj alias Sanjay Kumar.
After examining the facts, circumstances, and material on record, the court held that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature and that no prima facie offence was made out against the applicant.
The High Court further observed that no offence of rape was disclosed in the case and noted that the FIR appeared to have been lodged because the complainant was aggrieved by the applicant's conduct.
What Was the Case?
According to the case, the complainant, a resident of Pratapgarh, had moved to Prayagraj in 2014 to prepare for competitive examinations. The accused, who was a distant relative, allegedly helped her with studies and accommodation. During this period, the two developed a close relationship.
In her FIR, the woman alleged that the accused established physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage and later refused to marry her. She further claimed that whenever she raised the issue of marriage, he assaulted and threatened her.
During the investigation, the complainant stated that the accused had lived with her and had allegedly recorded an objectionable video to blackmail her. She also admitted that a symbolic marriage ceremony had been conducted in the presence of the applicant's relatives. However, the medical examination did not reveal any injury marks.
Police filed a chargesheet in 2020, and a magistrate took cognisance of the matter in 2021. The accused subsequently approached the Allahabad High Court seeking the quashing of the proceedings. The FIR, registered in 2019, invoked Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
What Court's Observed
The court noted that the complainant eventually married the applicant after the FIR was registered, indicating that the criminal complaint had been filed to compel the applicant to marry her.
It observed that the matter fell within the "rarest of the rare" category, where allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would be futile and would amount to a gross abuse of the judicial process.
The High Court pointed out that the relationship lasted from 2014 to 2019, which was nearly five years and said it was difficult to accept that consent was granted on every occasion solely because of a promise of marriage.
The court held that treating the breakdown of a long-term relationship as rape would amount to misuse of criminal law. According to the court, the case reflected a consensual relationship that later deteriorated rather than one induced through deception by a false promise of marriage.
After considering the submissions of both parties, the court found no material to suggest that the accused had intended to deceive the complainant from the very beginning. Referring to Supreme Court rulings in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, Ravish Singh Rana, and Deepak Gulati, the High Court reiterated that a rape charge based on a promise of marriage can be sustained only when it is established that the promise was false from the outset and consent was obtained solely on that basis.
In view of these findings, the court held that continuing the criminal proceedings against the accused was not justified and quashed the case.