- The court ruled a long-term consensual relationship cannot be deemed rape due to a broken marriage promise
- The court quashed all trial court proceedings against the man under rape and related charges
- The complainant married the accused after filing the FIR, indicating the case aimed to pressure for marriage
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that a long-term consensual relationship between two adults cannot be treated as rape merely because a promise to marry was not fulfilled.
The court quashed the entire proceedings pending before the trial court against the accused under charges including rape. The order was passed by a single bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh while allowing the petition filed by applicant Sanjay Saroj alias Sanjay Kumar.
Hearing the case, the court examined the arguments, circumstances, and material on record and found that the relationship was based on mutual consent. It held that no offence was prima facie made out against the accused.
In its 34-page judgment, the court clarified that if the complainant had given full consent to establish sexual relations with the accused, then the accused cannot be held guilty of rape.
The court observed that no offence of rape was made out against the applicant in this case and that the FIR was lodged because the complainant was upset with the applicant's conduct.
The court noted that the complainant married the applicant after the FIR was registered, which indicated that the FIR was filed to pressure the applicant into marriage. It held that the case falls under the "rarest of the rare" category where continuing criminal proceedings would not only be futile but also amount to a gross abuse of the judicial process.
The case pertains to Colonelganj police station in Prayagraj, where an FIR was lodged against the applicant in 2019 under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC. The complainant, a native of Pratapgarh, came to Prayagraj in 2014 to prepare for competitive exams. The accused, a distant relative, had helped her with studies and accommodation. During this period, the two grew close and entered into a relationship.
In the 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 claimed that whenever she raised the issue of marriage, the accused assaulted and threatened her.
During the investigation, the complainant also stated that the accused lived with her and had allegedly shot an objectionable video to blackmail her. She admitted that a symbolic marriage was conducted in the presence of the applicant's relatives. However, the medical examination did not find evidence of any injuries.
Police filed a chargesheet in 2020, and the magistrate took cognizance in 2021. The accused then moved the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings.
After analysing the case and submissions from both sides, the court found that the relationship lasted several years and was based on consent. It said there was nothing to suggest that the accused had an intention to deceive from the beginning. Citing Supreme Court judgments including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, Ravish Singh Rana, and Deepak Gulati, the High Court clarified that a rape case is made out only when it is proved that the promise to marry was false from the outset and consent was obtained on that basis.
The High Court observed that the relationship continued from 2014 to 2019 - nearly five years - and it was difficult to accept that consent was given each time only because of a promise of marriage. The court said that treating a fallout after a long-term relationship as rape would amount to misuse of law. It held that this was a case of a consensual relationship that soured, and not one established through deception via a false promise.
Continuing criminal proceedings against the accused, therefore, was not justified, the court observed.
In its judgment, the court referred to the Supreme Court's Bhajan Lal case and held that the matter squarely fell under categories (1), (5), and (7) of the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. The court said it was just to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. The court quashed the entire proceedings pending before the Prayagraj trial court against the applicant.
(With Inputs From Deepak Gambhir)
