The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, presided over by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, has quashed the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and entire criminal proceedings against an applicant accused of rape under the pretext of a false promise of marriage. The Court observed that the case arose from a consensual relationship between two adults that had turned sour. It held that unless there is evidence showing an intention to cheat from the inception of the relationship, a subsequent breach of promise to marry does not constitute a misconception of fact to vitiate consent under the law.
Background
The matter arose from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the victim (opposite party no. 2) on March 30, 2024, at Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur. The FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 238 of 2024, under Sections 376 (rape), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The informant alleged that she met the applicant, Sanjay @ Sanjay Kashyap, a year prior at a marriage ceremony. The applicant gifted her a mobile phone, leading to regular contact and a promise of marriage made by him in front of her family. Based on this promise, they developed physical intimacy. However, when she pressured him to marry her, he made excuses, threatened her life, and eventually declined. She also alleged that when she reached his house on March 26, 2024, he physically assaulted her.
During the investigation, the victim’s statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), where she claimed to be about 20 years old and educated up to Class 9. An ossification test subsequently determined her age to be above 20–21 years. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that on May 30, 2023, the applicant took her to a friend’s house where he forcibly established physical relations. She added that she still wanted to marry him.
The Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant on June 9, 2024. Subsequently, the Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge Junior Division-14, Gorakhpur, took cognizance of the offence on February 8, 2025. The applicant then preferred an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking the quashing of the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and the entire criminal proceedings in Case No. 159 of 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Applicant: The learned counsel for the applicant argued that a false and frivolous FIR was filed as a consequence of a broken relationship. They pointed out that the victim had been in touch with the applicant for a year, which substantiated a consensual relationship. Furthermore, the FIR lacked key details, failing to mention the date, time, and place of the alleged rape. The applicant’s counsel also highlighted significant discrepancies and changing versions in the victim’s statements in the FIR, her Section 161 statement, and her Section 164 statement. It was submitted that no external injuries were found during her medical examination, and the continuation of the proceedings would constitute an abuse of the judicial process.
Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 & State: The learned counsel for the victim and the learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) opposed the application. They argued that the applicant had continuously exploited the victim for a year using a false assurance of marriage that was deceptive from the very beginning. They submitted that when the victim confronted the applicant, she was physically abused and threatened in the presence of his family members. They contended that the material collected during the investigation established a prima facie offence, and therefore, the application lacked merit.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court addressed the threshold for exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.). Referencing the landmark Supreme Court ruling in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 605), the Court noted that proceedings can be quashed when the allegations, accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence, or when the proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. The Court also referred to R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta (2009 (1) SCC 516), State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa ((2002) 3 SCC 89), and Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P. ((2017) 13 SCC 369) to outline the scope of its inherent jurisdiction.
To evaluate whether a physical relationship maintained under a promise of marriage constitutes rape, the Court reviewed an extensive range of Supreme Court precedents:
- Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra ((2024) 11 SCC 398) & Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi ((2025) 5 SCC 764): The Supreme Court held that prolonged physical intimacy knowingly maintained by a woman cannot be assumed to be solely due to a promise of marriage, and a mere breakup of a consenting couple cannot result in criminal proceedings.
- Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528): The Apex Court condemned the tendency to give failed relationships the color of criminality, stating that converting a sour relationship into a rape case “trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice.”
- Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. (2025 (4) SCC 197): The Court observed that where a woman willingly engages in a long-term relationship, the man cannot be held guilty of rape under Section 376 IPC in the absence of evidence showing deceit from the inception.
- Shiv Shanker v. State of Karnataka ((2019) 18 SCC 204), Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2023) 15 SCC 385), & Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh (2026 SCC OnLine SC 154): These rulings differentiated a “false promise” from a “breach of promise,” stating that genuine cases must be demarcated from consensual relationships going acrimonious.
- Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1055) & Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra ((2019) 9 SCC 608): It was held that for consent to be vitiated as a “misconception of fact” under Section 90 IPC, the maker of the promise must have had no intention of keeping it at the time it was made. Similar principles from Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana ((2013) 7 SCC 675), Uday v. State of Karnataka ((2003) 4 SCC 46), Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of U.P. ((2021) 18 SCC 517), Dileep Singh v. State of Bihar ((2005) 1 SCC 88), Manish Yadav v. State of U.P. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 363), Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (2025 7 Supreme 489), Nitin B. Nikhare v. State of Maharashtra (2025), Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra ((2019) 18 SCC 191), Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand ((2020) 10 SCC 108), and Amal Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra (2025) were also discussed.
Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, the High Court made several critical observations:
“each and every promise of marriage would not be considered as a fact of misconception for the purpose of consensual sexual intercourse unless it is established that such promise of marriage was a false promise of marriage on the part of the accused since the beginning of such a relationship.”
The Court further clarified:
“Once, a promise was made in good faith and, subsequently after change of circumstances when the relationship between the parties went wrong for various other reasons, such breach of promise would not be treated as misconception for the purpose of consent of establishing physical relationship.”
Addressing the legal awareness expected of adults, the Court observed:
“When a woman of competent age, having sufficient understanding of the physical activities in which she is involved on the basis of a promise of marriage, understands the risks associated with such a physical relationship as there is a significant difference between marriage and a mere promise of marriage.”
Analyzing the victim’s conduct and statements, the Court noted:
“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.”
The Court concluded that the allegations of physical assault on March 26, 2024, were concocted to build a case for the FIR, noting:
“Therefore, the subsequent incident of physical assault on 26.03.2024 has been concocted by the prosecutrix only for the purpose of lodging the FIR. Nothing was stated by the victim in respect of the incident dated 26.03.2024 when her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.”
Highlighting the motive behind the criminal proceedings, the Court observed:
“The victim expressed her desire, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., that she wanted to get married to the applicant. It appears from her statement that the F.I.R. was lodged by the victim to exert pressure upon the applicant to get married to the victim.”
The Court found that other allegations of physical assault, wrongful confinement, and threat were not supported by any material particulars. Consequently, the Court held that the case squarely fell within the categories of “rarest of rare cases” where continuing the criminal proceedings would be in futility and a gross misuse of judicial process.
Decision
The High Court allowed the application under Section 528 of the BNSS. It quashed the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 159 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 238 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323, 342, and 506 of the IPC, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge Junior Division-14, Gorakhpur, along with the charge-sheet dated June 9, 2024, and the cognizance order dated February 8, 2025, against the applicant.
Case Details
- Case Title: Sanjay @ Sanjay Kashyap v. State of U.P. and Another
- Case No.: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 29363 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
- Date: May 20, 2026
