In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Shrey Gupta, accused of rape and extortion, underscoring that a consensual relationship lasting over 12 years cannot be treated as rape simply based on a breach of promise to marry. Justice Anish Kumar Gupta delivered this verdict, offering crucial clarity on the legal interpretation of consent and how long-term relationships affect charges of sexual exploitation under false pretenses. The judgment is a pivotal moment in defining the distinction between consensual sex and rape in Indian law.
Background of the Case:
The case, Application U/S 482 No. – 6789 of 2019, was filed by the applicant Shrey Gupta, seeking the quashing of a charge sheet dated August 9, 2018, in Session Trial No. 826 of 2018. The criminal proceedings arose from an FIR filed on March 21, 2018, by the opposite party (the informant), accusing Gupta of rape and extortion under Sections 376 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The informant, a woman from Moradabad, alleged that Gupta initiated a physical relationship with her while her husband was gravely ill, promising to marry her after her husband’s death. According to her, the relationship continued even after her husband’s passing, but Gupta ultimately became engaged to another woman in 2017. The informant further claimed that Gupta had forcibly raped her at gunpoint in January 2018, created compromising video footage, and demanded ₹50 lakh, threatening to release the videos and harm her family if his demands were not met.
Gupta denied the allegations, asserting that the relationship was entirely consensual and spanned over 12-13 years, beginning while the informant’s husband was still alive. He argued that the accusations were made to avoid a financial dispute involving ₹1 crore, which the informant owed him.
Key Legal Issues:
The case raised several important legal questions:
1. Whether a consensual sexual relationship, lasting over a decade, can later be classified as rape due to a breach of a promise to marry.
2. Whether the allegations of rape and extortion, based on a claimed promise to marry, hold legal weight when the relationship was acknowledged and consensual for many years.
3. The role of false promises in constituting rape under Section 375 IPC, particularly when the promise was allegedly made in a situation where the informant was already married.
Court’s Consideration and Observations:
The court closely examined the facts of the case and the applicable legal precedents. One of the key aspects noted was the long duration of the relationship, during which the informant, a woman in her late forties with two adult sons, engaged in a consensual relationship with the applicant, who was significantly younger. The informant continued the relationship even after her husband’s death and raised no objections for many years.
The court observed that, based on the evidence and the informant’s own statements, the relationship between Gupta and the informant was consensual from the beginning and continued for more than a decade. The allegation of rape, therefore, could not be substantiated under Section 375 of the IPC, which requires the absence of consent or the presence of coercion or a false promise made with malicious intent. The court cited several key precedents, including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020), which highlighted that mere breach of a promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it can be shown that the promise was made with fraudulent intent from the outset.
Important Observations from the Court:
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, while delivering the judgment, stated:
– “A long-standing consensual relationship, maintained across 12-13 years, cannot be construed as rape simply due to the eventual failure to marry.”
– “The prosecutrix, being a mature woman with adult children, entered into this relationship knowingly. Her claims of false promises to marry hold no legal standing when the facts indicate continuous consensual involvement.”
– “Consent in such matters must be clear and unequivocal, and in this case, the relationship was consensual, void of coercion or deception from the outset.”
Furthermore, the court noted that the police investigation had uncovered no medical evidence of rape, and the Call Detail Records (CDR) did not corroborate the informant’s claims of being at the alleged crime scene.
The Allahabad High Court ultimately quashed the charges against Shrey Gupta, including the rape and extortion allegations, asserting that the relationship between the applicant and the informant was consensual and that no prima facie case of rape was established. The court emphasized that consent obtained under a genuine promise of marriage, which is later broken, does not amount to rape unless it is proven that the promise was deceitful from the very beginning.
