The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in a judgment delivered on November 4, 2025, dismissed an Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. filed by an applicant seeking to quash a charge-sheet and entire proceedings against him for an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. (rape).
Justice Avnish Saxena, presiding over Court No. 81, held that the allegations in the F.I.R. and the victim’s statements, on the face of it, show “there was intentional false promise of marriage, which has direct nexus to influence the consent of the victim and are subject matter of trial.”
The Court heard Sri Om Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prince Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 (the victim), the victim in person, and Sri S.K. Rai, learned A.G.A.-I for the State. The judgment noted that the Court had initially, on 10.09.2025, directed the Registrar General to appoint an amicus curiae for opposite party no.2, but this was not required as she was subsequently represented by counsel.
Background of the Case
The matter originates from an F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no.2 on 17.01.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 46 of 2024 at Police Station Sahjanawa, District Gorakhpur, under Sections 376 and 120-B I.P.C.
According to the F.I.R., the victim, who resided with her maternal grandparents in Gorakhpur, came into contact with the accused-applicant through a friend. They exchanged phone numbers, and during their chats, the accused proposed marriage. When the victim expressed distrust, the accused claimed to have informed his family.
The F.I.R. alleges that on 21.11.2023, the accused took the victim to his residence and introduced her to his parents, who stated they had “no objection” to the marriage. At their instance, the accused allegedly “took the victim to his room, where she stayed from morning till evening and the accused has committed rape on her on false assurance of marriage.” When she objected, the accused assured her he would “certainly marry her.”
It is further alleged that on 23.11.2023, the accused took her to a hotel in Gorakhpur where they stayed the night, and the accused “again committed rape on her.” When the victim asked for a court marriage the next day, the accused began “dilly-dallying.”
The victim then intimated the incident to the accused’s younger brother, who also assured her the family was ready for the marriage. However, when she spoke to the accused’s father, he refused. The victim subsequently went to Sipriganj Police Station, where the “Darogaji” called the accused’s family members and “entered some paper work.”
Following this, the accused allegedly took the victim to Delhi. She stated she “stayed there with the accused for nearly a month and was subjected to rape on these days” under the continued false assurance of marriage. On 03.01.2024, the accused allegedly “left her alone at Delhi.” The victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were noted to be “on the same terms.”
After investigation, the Police submitted a charge-sheet against only the applicant for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C., while the other accused (the applicant’s brother and parents) were not charge-sheeted.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant’s Submissions: Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been “falsely implicated… due to ulterior motive of the victim” and for “extortion.” It was contended that:
- The relationship was consensual.
- The F.I.R. was delayed, lodged on 17.01.2024, though the accused allegedly left her on 03.01.2024.
- The victim (Date of Birth: 24.01.2001) was an adult.
- There was no medical corroboration of rape.
- The F.I.R. averments show the victim “on her own came to the residence of the accused, checked in the hotel and went to Delhi.”
- The applicant denied taking the victim to his residence or to Delhi and claimed the allegations were leveled “when she was caught by the Police at Delhi.”
- The F.I.R. was described as “frivolous, vexatious and concocted and abuse of process of law.”
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court cases of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (2019), Sonu alias Subhash Kumar (2021), and Amol Bhagwan Nehul (2025).
State’s Submissions (Learned A.G.A.): The Learned A.G.A. submitted that the Investigating Officer “has collected sufficient, credible and cogent material” against the applicant. It was argued that the applicant “has entered into sexual relations with opposite party no. 2, knowing fully well that he has given false assurance of marriage,” and that the application “deserves to be dismissed.”
Opposite Party No. 2’s Submissions (The Victim): Learned counsel for the victim submitted that the “accused applicant has committed rape on the victim, despite her objection to enter into physical relations before the marriage.” It was argued that:
- Consent was “obtained by false assurance of marriage… that he will certainly marry her.”
- This “does not fall in the category of consented or consensual sex.”
- The victim went to the Police Station after 23.11.2023, where family members were called and “some paper work were undertaken.”
- She went to Delhi “with the firm belief that the accused will marry her,” but he “left her in lurch on 03.01.2024.”
- The cases relied upon by the applicant do not apply because “the genesis of the proposal of marriage was false.”
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The Court cited paragraph 18 of a relevant Supreme Court judgment (Pramod Suryabhan Pawar), which summarises the legal position: “The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.”
Applying this test, Justice Saxena examined the facts alleged in the F.I.R. and statements “on the face of it” to ascertain “as to whether the promise of marriage was false at its very inception and its sole purpose was to fetch consent of the victim.”
The Court highlighted three key instances from the victim’s allegations:
- The first instance on 21.11.2023, when the marriage was allegedly assured “by the accused and his parents” at his residence.
- The subsequent instance on 23.11.2023 at a hotel, which was “intimated to the Police by the victim.”
- The third instance of taking the victim to Delhi, which allegedly occurred “on the assurance of parents of the accused, who had given consent of marriage at Police Station… Sipriganj, Gorakhpur.”
Based on these allegations, the Court concluded in paragraph 13: “All these instances mentioned in the F.I.R. and statement of victim, on the face of it shows that there was intentional false promise of marriage, which has direct nexus to influence the consent of the victim and are subject matter of trial.”
The Court also distinguished the cases relied upon by the applicant:
- In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, the Supreme Court found the allegations did not indicate the promise was false or that the complainant engaged in relations on the basis of the promise.
- Sonu alias Subhash Kumar was “based on different facts” where the victim “developed voluntary relations of husband and wife” before the accused refused marriage.
- Amol Bhagwan Nehul was on “different fact,” as the complainant’s “first marriage was subsisting” and the accused was a student.
The High Court concluded, “Therefore, the cited cases relied on by the applicant are of no help to the applicant.”
Decision
Finding the application “devoid of merit,” the High Court dismissed the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. and vacated the interim order dated 01.08.2024.
