Allahabad High Court flags ‘growing trend of sour relationships being criminalised’, quashes rape case | Legal News

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh quashed the criminal proceedings.

Rape allegations

• According to the prosecution’s case, the accused purchased a mobile phone for the woman, whereafter both parties started engaging in conversations. It was alleged that they developed intimacy on account of the promise of marriage between them.
• The woman alleged that when she pressured the accused to marry her, he made excuses and later threatened to kill her.
• Subsequently, she lodged an FIR against the accused, alleging that the accused forcibly established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage.
• The counsel for the accused argued that the woman had been in touch with the accused for the last one year, and that the FIR was lodged when things did not work out between them.
• Opposing the plea, the counsel for the woman submitted that the accused assured her of marriage, which was a false assurance from the very beginning.
• It was alleged that when she approached the accused, she was physically abused and threatened in the presence of the accused’s family members.

No element of cheating from inception

Relying on a catena of judgments, the court noted that a consensual physical relationship would not amount to rape without any element of cheating from the inception.

“It is crystal clear that if the parties were in a long-standing and continuous consensual physical relationship, without any element of cheating from the inception, such a relationship would not amount to rape,” the court observed.

The court emphasised that every promise of marriage would not be considered as a fact of misconception for consensual sexual intercourse unless it is established that such a promise of marriage was a false promise of marriage on the part of the accused since the beginning of such a relationship.

“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 noted.

The court observed that it was not the prosecution’s case that the accused had no intention to marry right from the beginning; therefore, the basic ingredients constituting an offence of rape were not made out.

The court held that the woman could not blame the accused for breach of promise as the promise itself was non-est at the time of the beginning of the relationship between the parties.

“No offence of rape is made out against the applicant herein, and the instant FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix as she was annoyed by the behaviour of the applicant, and was unwilling to leave the applicant,” the court remarked.

It further added that the subsequent incident of physical assault was concocted by the woman only for the purpose of lodging the FIR.

The court noted that the woman had expressed her desire of getting married to the accused and that the FIR was lodged to pressurise the accused to get married with her.

“The victim expressed her desire, in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, that she wanted to get married to the applicant. It appears from her statement that the FIR was lodged by the victim to exert pressure upon the applicant to get married to the victim,” the court remarked.

The court observed that the case was fit to invoke the inherent jurisdiction for quashing the criminal proceedings, as continuing with the criminal proceedings would be in futility and gross misuse of criminal jurisdiction.

“The other allegations of physical assault, wrongful confinement and threat have not been supported by any material particulars. Hence, the application under Section 528 BNSS has merit and liable to be allowed,” the court said.

It therefore quashed the chargesheet and the criminal proceedings registered against the accused.