The Allahabad High Court has quashed rape and allied criminal proceedings against a former Uttar Pradesh Police Inspector, holding that the material on record showed a consensual relationship and did not establish that any promise to marry was false from its inception. Justice Madan Pal Singh ruled that continuing the prosecution against applicant Amit Kumar would amount to an abuse of the process of court.
The application sought quashing of the July 18, 2020 charge-sheet and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 11358 of 2020 arising from offences under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act.
Background
The FIR was lodged on January 8, 2020. According to the prosecution, the complainant had known Kumar since 2013, when he was posted as SHO at Kosi Kalan, Mathura. She alleged that he later proposed marriage, concealed his existing marriage and induced her to travel to Varanasi in 2019.
The complainant alleged that Kumar gave her an intoxicant at a hotel, sexually assaulted her while she was unconscious, took objectionable photographs and videos, and thereafter used them to blackmail her into continuing the physical relationship. She further alleged that she became pregnant and that Kumar caused termination of the pregnancy. In her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, she reiterated the allegations.
Applicant’s Arguments
Kumar argued that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant voluntarily travelled to Varanasi, stayed with him and remained in contact with him thereafter. His counsel relied upon photographs and WhatsApp conversations forming part of the record to contend that the two were in a relationship of their own free will.
It was also argued that the promise of marriage was genuine. According to the applicant, his relationship with his first wife had deteriorated and he had initiated divorce proceedings, which ultimately resulted in a decree of divorce in December 2023. He further relied on WhatsApp conversations to submit that the complainant knew about his existing marriage and had agreed to wait until the divorce was finalised.
The applicant also contended that no alleged obscene photographs or videos used for blackmail were recovered during investigation.
The State and the complainant opposed the plea, maintaining that the applicant had deceived her through a promise of marriage while concealing his earlier marriage and had repeatedly established physical relations with her on that basis.
False Promise and Breach of Promise Are Different
The High Court examined the distinction between a false promise of marriage made from the outset to obtain consent and a later failure to fulfil a genuine promise.
Referring to Supreme Court rulings including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, the Court said criminal liability for rape on the basis of a promise to marry requires proof that the accused never intended to fulfil the promise when it was made and that the promise had a direct nexus with the woman’s consent to the sexual relationship.
The Court summarised the governing principle in the following terms:
“A consensual sexual relationship followed by a subsequent refusal to marry does not render the accused liable for rape.”
It further held that the prosecution must establish that the promise was false from the very beginning, was made with dishonest intent to deceive and that the complainant’s consent was obtained solely because of that promise.
Court Finds Relationship Consensual
Examining the FIR, statements, photographs and WhatsApp chats on record, the Court noted that the complainant was about 27 years old, educated, had known the applicant since 2013 and travelled to Varanasi in September 2019. The Court also relied on the continued interaction between the parties, their photographs and their WhatsApp exchanges.
It found that the material did not establish that Kumar had refused to marry the complainant. The Court also referred to WhatsApp chats which, according to it, showed that the complainant knew of the applicant’s existing marriage and was prepared to wait until his divorce.
On the allegation of blackmail through obscene videos and photographs, the Court noted that no such material had been produced before it or collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation.
After considering the circumstances recorded in the judgment, the Court concluded:
“From the aforesaid facts this Court has no room to doubt in order to express its final opinion that the prosecutrix was in company of the applicant on her own free will and the relationship established between them was fully consensual in nature and nothing otherwise.”
Proceedings Quashed
The High Court held that no case under Sections 376, 323 and 504 IPC or Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act was made out against the applicant. It further held that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue where no criminal liability could be attached would amount to abuse of the process of court.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the July 18, 2020 charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 11358 of 2020 arising from Case Crime No. 02 of 2020, including the offences under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 67(A) of the IT Act.
Case Title: Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. & Another
Case No.: Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020
Bench: Justice Madan Pal Singh
Date: September 30, 2026
