In a significant legal ruling on the boundaries between personal relationships and criminal liability, the Allahabad High Court quashed the charge-sheet and entire criminal proceedings against Lokendra Singh in a case involving allegations of rape under the pretext of a false promise of marriage. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held that a long-standing consensual physical relationship between major, competent adults cannot subsequently be given the color of criminality merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage or turned sour. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and quashed the charge-sheet dated April 5, 2024, the cognizance order dated October 16, 2024, and the full proceedings in Criminal Case No. 108112 of 2024 pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the victim on March 2, 2024, at Police Station Gujaini, Kanpur Nagar, registered as Case Crime No. 57 of 2024 under Sections 376 (rape), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The initial FIR did not specify the exact date, time, or place of the alleged incident.
According to the prosecution narrative and statements recorded during investigation, the applicant and the victim befriended each other on Facebook, which developed into a romantic relationship starting February 19, 2022. The victim alleged that in May 2022, the applicant promised to marry her, and physical relations were first established on July 7, 2022, in an under-construction building belonging to a friend of the applicant. In her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the victim admitted that over a period of one and a half years, they entered into a consensual physical relationship approximately 30 to 40 times across various locations, including hotels and the under-construction building.
In November 2023, the relationship broke down when the applicant refused to marry her, and the victim subsequently learned through social media that the applicant’s marriage had been arranged with another woman. Following unsuccessful talks between the families, during which the applicant’s mother allegedly hurled abuses at the victim, the FIR was lodged on March 2, 2024. The applicant solemnized his marriage with another woman on March 4, 2024. Following investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet No. 65 of 2024 on April 5, 2024, and the trial court took cognizance on October 16, 2024.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the applicant, Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, argued that the FIR was entirely false, frivolous, and a result of a broken relationship lodged out of anger when the victim learned of the applicant’s ‘Tilak’ ceremony. He highlighted that the victim was an educated working adult—an LIC agent born on January 17, 2003—who was over 21 years old at the time of lodging the FIR. Counsel pointed out that the victim voluntarily maintained a continuous physical relationship for one and a half years without any external injuries or protest. It was submitted that no element of deceit or false promise existed from the inception, and continuing criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law.
Conversely, learned counsel for the victim, Sri Raj Kumar Shukla, and Sri O.N. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State, contended that the applicant continuously exploited the victim sexually for over a year on the basis of a false promise of marriage made right from the beginning. They submitted that when the victim confronted the applicant and his family, she was abused and threatened. They argued that the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. established a prima facie offence, justifying the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer.
Court’s Analysis and Precedents
In analyzing whether a prima facie case of rape was established or if continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of judicial process, the High Court relied on settled legal principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 Cr.P.C., as articulated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (1992), R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta (2009), State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa (2002), and Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P. (2017).
To evaluate allegations of rape based on a false promise of marriage, the Court reviewed extensive jurisprudence from the Supreme Court, including Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024), Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025), Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra (2025), Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. (2025), Shiv Shanker v. State of Karnataka (2019), Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT Of Delhi) (2023), Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh (2026), Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand (2025), Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003), Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of U.P. (2021), Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013), Dileep Singh v. State of Bihar (2005), Manish Yadav v. State of U.P. (2025), Nitin B. Nikhare v. State of Maharashtra (2025), Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020), Amal Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra (2025), and Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (2025).
The Court emphasized the crucial distinction between a breach of promise and a false promise made with fraudulent intent at the inception. Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahesh Damu Khare, the Court observed:
“where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of the alleged promise of marriage.”
Reiterating the observations from Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, the Court noted:
“The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. 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.”
Addressing the requirement of bad faith at the inception of a relationship, the Court stated:
“Unless it is alleged that, from the very beginning of such a relationship, there was some element of cheating on the part of the accused while making such promise, it would not be treated as a false promise of marriage.”
The Court further underlined the responsibility and autonomy of consenting adults in romantic relationships, stating:
“An educated and independent adult, upon entering into a consensual relationship, must also recognise that the law cannot be invoked to criminalise the mere failure of a relationship. The dissolution of a relationship, by itself, does not give rise to criminal liability.”
Applying these legal standards to the facts of the case, the High Court observed:
“In the present case, the victim has not alleged that the applicant had no intention to marry right from the beginning. Therefore, the basic ingredients constituting an offence of rape are not made out.”
Examining the conduct of the parties and the delay in lodging the FIR, the Court remarked:
“In this Court’s view, the present case is an example of a failed relationship, wherein the decision of the applicant to withdraw from the relationship was not accepted, and sought to be addressed through the initiation of criminal proceedings.”
The Court added that “It appears from the conduct of the victim that the first information report was lodged by her to take revenge from the applicant.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court concluded that the victim, being an educated and mature adult above 21 years of age, voluntarily engaged in a long-standing physical relationship spanning one and a half years with full understanding of its consequences. The Court found that no prima facie offence under Section 376 IPC was established, and allegations regarding abuse and threats under Sections 504 and 506 IPC were unsupported by material particulars. Holding that the case squarely fell within the rarest of rare categories for invoking inherent powers under guidelines (1), (5), and (7) of the Bhajan Lal judgment, the Court allowed the application to prevent futility and gross misuse of criminal jurisdiction.
Case Title: Lokendra Singh Versus State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 16851 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
Date: June 18, 2026
