The Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant ruling clarifying that prolonged consensual sexual relationships, even when followed by a broken promise of marriage, cannot be retroactively converted into criminal rape under Section 376 IPC. The judgment underscores the necessity of distinguishing between personal betrayal and criminal sexual violence, reinforcing that the criminal justice system must not be weaponized to resolve broken relationships.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Ajay Saini, is accused of raping a woman over a four-year period on the false promise of marriage. The victim, a GNM-trained nurse, met the applicant in 2019 while seeking employment. The applicant, who operated a Pradhanmantri Jan Aushadhi Medical Store in Rajwara, Rampur, allegedly lured her to Moradabad under the pretext of arranging a hospital job. Instead, she was allegedly given a stupefied substance in a cold drink or meal, rendered unconscious, and raped. He then promised marriage, which she allegedly believed, leading to continued sexual relations until late 2024.
Key Facts
- The victim completed her GNM course in 2019 and was unemployed at the time of meeting the applicant.
- The first alleged incident occurred in 2019 in Moradabad, at a hotel or restaurant near Buddha Bazar railway station.
- The victim’s account of the location and method of intoxication changed across statements: FIR mentions a hotel room with cold drink; Section 180 BNSS statement mentions a restaurant with cold drink; Section 164 CrPC statement mentions food at the restaurant.
- No specific date, time, or exact location of the initial or subsequent rapes was provided.
- The victim did not report the initial incident or any of the subsequent acts during the four-year period.
- The victim’s family approached the applicant’s family on 18.08.2024 after learning he was engaged to another woman.
- The applicant’s father and brother allegedly abused and threatened the victim’s family during this meeting.
- The FIR was lodged on 03.12.2024, nearly five years after the first alleged incident.
- The victim was a major, educated adult with no physical injuries documented.
Procedural History
- 03.12.2024: FIR No. 221 of 2024 lodged at P.S. Kotwali, Rampur against Ajay Saini, his father Charan Saini, and brother Ravi Saini.
- 25.12.2024: Charge Sheet No. 213 of 2024 filed against the applicant for offences under Sections 376, 328, 504, 506, 323 IPC.
- 23.01.2025: Cognizance taken by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Rampur.
- 08.02.2025: Case No. 82 of 2025 (State vs. Ajay Saini and others) commenced.
- 19.01.2026: Application under Section 528 BNSS filed for quashing of proceedings.
- 16.03.2026: Judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel argued that the case was fabricated due to the victim’s disappointment over the broken engagement. The allegations were vague, inconsistent, and lacked specific details on time, place, and manner of each alleged rape. The delay of over four years in lodging the FIR, coupled with the absence of physical evidence or prior complaint, indicated a civil dispute masquerading as a criminal one. Reliance was placed on Samadhan S/o Sitaram Manmothe v. State of Maharashtra and Supreme Court precedents on consensual relationships.
For the Respondent
The State and victim’s counsel contended that the applicant exploited the victim’s vulnerability as a job seeker, drugged her, and raped her repeatedly over four years under false promises. The changing details in statements were attributed to trauma and psychological distress. The threat by the applicant’s family on 18.08.2024 was cited as the catalyst for the FIR.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the Charge Sheet dated 25.12.2024, the cognizance order dated 23.01.2025, and all proceedings in Case No. 82 of 2025, arguing that continuation would amount to abuse of process.
The Legal Issue
Can criminal proceedings for rape under Section 376 IPC be maintained where the victim and accused engaged in a prolonged, consensual sexual relationship over four years, with no prior complaint, and the sole trigger for the FIR is the accused’s decision to marry another person?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on Samadhan S/o Sitaram Manmothe v. State of Maharashtra, Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand, and Prashant v. NCT of Delhi to argue that when two adults engage in a long-term intimate relationship, the law presumes voluntary consent. A broken promise of marriage, without evidence of initial coercion or deception at the outset, cannot transform consensual acts into rape. The inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and the absence of any immediate complaint undermined the credibility of the allegations.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the initial act of drugging and raping the victim was non-consensual and that the subsequent acts were facilitated by the false promise of marriage, thereby vitiating consent under Section 375 IPC. The delay in reporting was explained as due to shame and fear of social stigma, and the family confrontation on 18.08.2024 was the breaking point.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the FIR, the victim’s statements under Sections 180 BNSS and 164 CrPC, and the legal precedents on consensual relationships and false promises of marriage. It noted that the victim’s account of the first incident varied materially across documents: the location shifted from hotel to restaurant, the method of intoxication from cold drink to food, and the sequence of events lacked chronological clarity.
"The prosecution case is silent about the food, victim ate or the cold drink she has consumed and whether the stupefied substance could be mixed in the food which is offered in the restaurant."
The Court emphasized that the victim, an educated adult, maintained a sexual relationship with the accused for four years without any complaint, despite having multiple opportunities to report the initial incident. The absence of physical injuries and the lack of any prior communication of distress further weakened the claim of non-consent.
The Court then turned to binding precedents. In Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court held that long-term live-in relationships between adults imply voluntary consent, and a subsequent broken promise of marriage cannot retroactively criminalize consensual acts. Similarly, in Prashant v. NCT of Delhi, the Court observed that a consensual relationship cannot be converted into rape merely because it did not culminate in marriage.
The Court also cited Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, which clarified that a woman may have reasons for a relationship beyond a promise of marriage, such as personal affection, and that the nexus between the promise and the sexual acts must be direct and exclusive.
"A woman may have reasons to have physical relationship other than the promise of marriage made by the man, such as personal liking for the male partner without insisting upon formal marital ties."
The Court concluded that the case lacked the essential ingredient of non-consent at the time of each alleged act. The delay, inconsistencies, and absence of corroborative evidence rendered the prosecution case unsustainable. Continuing the proceedings would amount to a gross abuse of the criminal justice process.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Allahabad High Court quashed Charge Sheet No. 213 of 2024, the cognizance order dated 23.01.2025, and all proceedings in Case No. 82 of 2025 against the applicant for offences under Sections 376, 328, 504, 506, and 323 IPC. The Court held that the continuation of the prosecution would be an abuse of process and ordered the case closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consensual Long-Term Relationships Cannot Be Criminalized Post-Facto
- Practitioners must now argue that any prosecution under Section 376 IPC based solely on a broken promise of marriage must demonstrate that consent was vitiated at the time of each sexual act, not merely inferred from the relationship’s end.
- Absence of immediate complaint, absence of physical injury, and prolonged cohabitation are critical factors to challenge the prima facie case.
Inconsistencies in Victim Statements Are Fatal to Prosecution
- Material contradictions in the victim’s account regarding time, place, and method of alleged intoxication or rape must be aggressively highlighted to undermine credibility.
- Courts will not tolerate vague, evolving narratives in serious sexual offence cases, especially where the complainant is an educated adult.
Delay in Filing FIR Is Not Merely Procedural - It Is Substantive
- A delay of over four years, without credible explanation, raises a presumption of ulterior motive, particularly when the FIR coincides with the accused’s engagement to another.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the delay was due to trauma or fear, not disappointment in a failed relationship.
The Supreme Court’s 'Rarest of Rare' Standard Applies to Quashing
- Section 528 BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC) permits quashing only in rare cases where proceedings are manifestly abusive.
- This judgment reinforces that courts must not become arbiters of broken personal relationships - criminal law must be reserved for genuine sexual violence, not emotional betrayal.
