The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has quashed the criminal proceedings and charge sheet against an accused charged with rape on the false promise of marriage, ruling that a prolonged physical relationship between consenting adults cannot be retrospectively branded as rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage. Justice Avnish Saxena held that continuing the criminal proceedings in this case would be an abuse of the process of law.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the victim on December 3, 2024, at Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur, against the applicant (Ajay Saini), his father, and his brother. According to the prosecution, the victim, who had completed a General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) course in 2019, came in contact with the applicant while searching for a job.
The victim alleged that the applicant lured her with a job prospect in Moradabad, took her to a hotel room, and administered a stupefying substance in a cold drink. She claimed that the applicant committed rape while she was unconscious and, upon her regaining consciousness and opposing the act, assured her of marriage. The FIR stated that the applicant continuously committed rape on the false promise of marriage for four years. The FIR was lodged after the victim discovered the applicant was engaged to someone else, and after she and her family were allegedly abused and threatened by the applicant’s father and brother. A charge sheet was subsequently filed under Sections 376, 328, 504, 506, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Arguments of the Parties
For the Applicant: Counsel for the accused-applicant, Shri Vinod Singh, argued that a false and frivolous case was lodged due to broken relations, highlighting a four-year delay in filing the FIR. The defense pointed out that the victim’s statements regarding the location and method of administering the stupefying substance kept changing across her FIR, her statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and her statement to the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The counsel submitted that the core issue was a relationship gone sour upon the discovery of the applicant’s impending marriage to another woman, and relied heavily on the Supreme Court precedent in Samadhan S/o Sitaram Manmothe Vs. State of Maharashtra.
For the State and Victim: The Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) and counsel for the victim, Shri Surendra Nath Tripathi, contended that the applicant continuously exploited the victim for four years starting from the 2019 incident in Moradabad. They argued that the promise of marriage was false from the very beginning, and that the Investigating Officer had found sufficient material to submit a charge sheet against the applicant and his family members.
The Court’s Analysis
Justice Avnish Saxena examined whether the material collected by the Investigating Officer pointed to a prima facie case of rape or if the continuance of the proceedings was an abuse of the process of law.
The Court noted significant discrepancies in the victim’s statements. The initial FIR lacked specifics regarding the date, time, and place of the 2019 incident. Furthermore, the Court observed that the victim’s account of the alleged intoxication changed from a hotel room and a cold drink in the FIR, to a restaurant and a cold drink in her Section 180 BNSS statement, and finally to a restaurant and food in her Section 164 CrPC statement. The Court also noted that the victim, an educated person, maintained a relationship with the applicant for four years without lodging any initial complaint.
Relying on established Supreme Court jurisprudence, the High Court analyzed the nature of the relationship. The Court cited Ravish Singh Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand, quoting:
“…if two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences.”
The Court also referenced Prashant Vs. NCT of Delhi, emphasizing:
“A mere break up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship.”
Further, citing Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Court observed that when a physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period, it cannot be said with certainty that it was purely because of an alleged promise of marriage.
Adopting the principles laid down in Samadhan S/o Sitaram Manmothe Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Court quoted the Supreme Court’s strong observations on the misuse of the criminal justice system in relationship disputes:
“…physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage.”
“To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice.”
The High Court concluded that “the present case stands on the footing of rarest of rare case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction for quashing the criminal proceedings, as continuing with criminal proceedings would be in futility and gross misuse of criminal jurisdiction.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the application under Section 528 of the BNSS. The Court quashed Charge Sheet No. 213 of 2024, the cognizance-taking order dated January 23, 2025, and the proceedings of Case No. 82 of 2025 (State Vs. Ajay Saini and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 221 of 2024 for offenses under Sections 376, 328, 504, 506, and 323 of the IPC, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Rampur, qua the applicant.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Ajay Saini Versus State of U.P. and Another
- Case Number: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 15904 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Avnish Saxena
- Date of Decision: March 16, 2026
- Counsel for Applicant: Vinod Singh
- Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Surendra Nath Tripathi
