Court rules that long-standing consensual relationship does not constitute rape without evidence of fraudulent intent at inception.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against Sanjay Saroj, who was accused of rape based on an alleged false promise of marriage. The case, arising from a First Information Report (FIR) filed in 2019, involved allegations that Saroj had engaged in sexual relations with the prosecutrix under the pretense of marriage. The High Court, presided over by Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, J., found that the allegations did not constitute rape as defined under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, because the relationship was consensual and lacked any evidence of fraudulent intent from the beginning.
The court emphasized that a consensual relationship, even if it includes physical intimacy, cannot be equated with rape simply due to the failure to marry, unless it is clearly established that the promise of marriage was fraudulent and made with intent to deceive from the very start. The judgment further noted that the prosecutrix and the accused were in a consensual relationship for over five years, with no complaint made until the relationship turned sour.
The prosecutrix, who was an educated adult, had engaged in a relationship with the accused from 2014, and it was only in 2019 that the FIR was filed. The court observed that the prosecutrix was mature enough to understand the nature of the relationship and that her consent was not vitiated by any misconception of fact.
Citing several precedents, including the guidelines laid down in the Bhajan Lal case, the court reiterated that criminal proceedings should only be quashed in exceptional cases where the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence. The court found that the present case was one such rare instance, where the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The judgment also dismissed the charges under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC, as there was no material evidence to substantiate claims of abuse and threat. The court concluded that the FIR and subsequent proceedings were initiated due to personal grievances rather than any criminal offence, and therefore, the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. was allowed, quashing the entire proceedings against the applicant.
This ruling reinforces the legal distinction between consensual relationships and those involving coercion or deceit, providing clarity on the application of rape laws in cases involving promises of marriage.
Bottom line:-
A consensual relationship, even if it involves physical intimacy, cannot be equated with rape on the mere premise of a subsequent failure to marry unless it is clearly established that the promise of marriage was fraudulent and made with an intent to deceive from the very inception.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 376, 323, 504, 506; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482
Sanjay Saroj @ Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2928743
