The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that a prior consensual relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix does not, by itself, render a criminal complaint under Sections 376 and 506 IPC frivolous or warrant quashing of the FIR. The Court emphasized that allegations of coercion, blackmail, and financial exploitation must be examined on their own merits at trial.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Deepak Vishnoi, is accused in FIR No. 752 of 2025 registered at Police Station Banganga, Indore, for offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations centre on sexual assault and criminal intimidation following a prolonged personal relationship with the prosecutrix.
Key Facts
- The prosecutrix and the petitioner were in a consensual romantic relationship between 01.04.2022 and 01.03.2024.
- During this period, photographs and WhatsApp chats exchanged between them were submitted by the petitioner to the Court.
- The prosecutrix married another person after the relationship ended.
- The petitioner re-established contact with her after her marriage, allegedly under the pretext of sharing intimate videos.
- The prosecutrix alleges that the petitioner coerced her into resuming a physical relationship and subsequently demanded Rs. 10 lakhs, threatening to viralize private videos if she refused.
- The amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was allegedly paid by the prosecutrix under duress.
- The FIR was lodged on 05.06.2025.
Procedural History
- 01.04.2022: Start of consensual relationship between petitioner and prosecutrix.
- 01.03.2024: End of initial relationship; prosecutrix marries another.
- Post 01.03.2024: Petitioner re-enters prosecutrix’s life, initiates contact, and demands money.
- 05.06.2025: FIR No. 752 of 2025 registered at Banganga Police Station, Indore.
- 14.08.2025: Petitioner granted anticipatory bail in M.Cr.C. No. 25940 of 2025 on grounds that the dispute was "monetary in nature".
- 07.04.2026: Present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 filed for quashing the FIR.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 752 of 2025 and all consequential proceedings, arguing that the relationship was consensual and the matter was purely civil or financial in nature.
The Legal Issue
Can an FIR for rape and blackmail under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC be quashed solely on the ground that the accused and prosecutrix had a prior consensual relationship, when the allegations include coercion, financial exploitation, and threat of dissemination of private content?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the relationship between the parties was consensual and documented through photographs and WhatsApp chats, which demonstrated mutual affection. He relied on the Court’s earlier grant of anticipatory bail on 14.08.2025, which had characterized the dispute as "monetary in nature", to argue that the criminal allegations were an abuse of process. He submitted that the prosecution was motivated by post-breakup resentment and that the matter should be resolved through civil remedies.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed the petition, arguing that the allegations went beyond a mere financial dispute. The prosecutrix’s complaint detailed coercion, threats to expose private material, and sexual assault occurring after she had ended the relationship and married another. The State emphasized that consent obtained under threat of public humiliation does not constitute valid consent under Section 375 IPC, and that the demand for Rs. 10 lakhs under threat of blackmail falls squarely within Section 506 IPC.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the allegations in the FIR and the context in which the relationship resumed after the prosecutrix’s marriage. It noted that while the existence of a prior consensual relationship may be relevant, it cannot override the specific allegations of coercion, blackmail, and non-consensual sexual acts occurring under duress.
"It is also found that the allegation against the petitioner is of not only the rape but also of blackmailing the prosecutrix, as he had also obtained some amount from her."
The Court held that the grant of anticipatory bail on the basis of a "monetary dispute" was an interim measure and did not constitute a finding on the merits of the case. The Court further clarified that the existence of intimate communications does not negate the possibility of criminal conduct occurring later under pressure or threat.
The Court applied the principle that consent obtained by fear of injury or threat of exposure is not consent in law, as recognized under Section 375 IPC and affirmed in State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar. The Court also noted that the demand of Rs. 10 lakhs under threat of disseminating private videos constitutes a clear case of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
The Court explicitly stated that it had not evaluated the truth of the allegations, but found sufficient grounds to proceed to trial.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all legal defenses before the trial court. No relief was granted to the petitioner. The Court made clear that the merits of the case remain to be determined at trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prior Consent Does Not Bar Criminal Prosecution
- Practitioners must not assume that a prior consensual relationship automatically invalidates charges of rape or blackmail.
- Courts will examine whether consent to sexual activity was obtained under coercion, threat, or deception, regardless of prior intimacy.
Blackmail Through Threat of Exposure Is a Distinct Offence
- Threats to disseminate private images or videos to extract money constitute a standalone offence under Section 506 IPC.
- Evidence of such threats, even if accompanied by consensual communications, must be treated as criminal conduct, not civil dispute.
Anticipatory Bail Grants Are Not Merits Decisions
- An order granting anticipatory bail on procedural or interim grounds cannot be cited as a precedent for quashing an FIR.
- Courts must conduct a separate, rigorous analysis under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 B.N.S.S., 2023 to determine quashing.
Documentary Evidence Must Be Contextualized
- WhatsApp chats and photographs may be admitted as evidence but must be evaluated for context, timing, and coercion.
- A pattern of communication before a relationship does not negate criminal intent during or after its renewal under duress.
