The Allahabad High Court quashed rape and extortion charges against a man, observing that his long-standing consensual physical relationship with a widow does not amount to rape.

The Single-Bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held that a consensual relationship spanning 12–13 years, without any element of coercion or false promise of marriage from the outset, cannot be construed as rape.

The Court clarified that not every promise of marriage turns consensual intercourse into rape unless it is proven that the promise was false from the beginning.

"Each and every promise of marriage would not be considered a fact of misconception for the purpose of consensual sexual intercourse unless it is established that such promise of marriage was a false promise since the beginning of such a relationship," the Court said.

The case originated from a complaint by a widow who alleged that Gupta, who had a consensual relationship with her after the death of her husband, had promised to marry her but later got engaged to another woman. She also accused him of extortion, claiming Gupta demanded Rs. 50 lakh to suppress a video of their intimate encounters. The trial court had taken cognizance of offences under Section 376 (rape) and Section 386 (extortion) of the IPC.

The Applicant sought to quash the criminal proceedings, arguing that the relationship had been consensual throughout and that the charges were baseless. The Court agreed, noting that the widow exerted undue influence over Gupta, who was much younger and worked in her late husband’s business.

The Bench noted, "..at the time of initiation of the physical relationship with the applicant, the prosecutrix, her husband was alive. Therefore, the allegation that the applicant had promised her to marry was of no consequence, as the prosecutrix herself was not having any capacity to marry with the applicant at the relevant time, and such a consensual physical relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix had continued for about 12–13 years without any objection on the part of the prosecutrix."

The Court opined, "The aforesaid physical relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix was a long-standing consensual adulterous physical relationship, which would not amount to rape within the meaning of Section 375 I.P.C."

The Court further dismissed the extortion charge, observing that neither the alleged video nor the pistol purportedly used to threaten the complainant were recovered, casting doubt on the credibility of the allegations. "The further story is that on 17.01.2018 the applicant had put a country-made pistol on her head and had forcibly raped her and prepared the video clip. From the record neither the video clip is recovered nor the said country-made pistol has been recovered from possession of the applicant or on the indication of the applicant herein," it said.

Citing Supreme Court precedent, the Court emphasized that not every breach of a promise to marry should be prosecuted as rape. Consequently, the Court quashed the charges of rape and extortion against Gupta, allowing the trial to end.

The Court said, "This Court is of the considered opinion that in the instant case no offence of rape is made out against the applicant herein and the instant F.I.R. has been lodged by the prosecutrix being annoyed with regard to the engagement of the applicant with some other lady and she was not willing to leave the applicant, therefore, the subsequent incident of forcible rape has been concocted by the prosecutrix only for the purpose of lodging the F.I.R., which is not substantiated during the investigation."

Consequently, the Court ordered, "Therefore, the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings of the Charge-sheet dated 09.08.2018 in S.T. No. 826 of 2018 as well as the entire criminal proceedings in Case Crime No. 59 of 2018 under Sections 376 an 386 I.P.C., Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Moradabad, pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Moradabad, are hereby quashed."

Cause Title: ABC v. State of U.P. and Another [Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:161316]

Appearance:-

Applicant: Senior Advocate V.P. Srivastava, Advocates Irfan Hasan, Vijit Saxena

Opposite Party: Advocates Jagdev Singh, Mohd. Shoaib Khan (AGA)

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Anish Kumar GuptaAllahabad High Court

Sukriti Mishra