Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court observed that an educated and independent adult, upon entering into a consensual relationship, must also recognise that the law cannot be invoked to criminalise the mere failure of a relationship

The Court quashed the criminal proceedings, chargesheet, and summoning order against an accused facing allegations of rape under the pretext of a false promise of marriage.

The Court highlighted that unless a fraudulent intent or deception is explicitly manifest at the very inception of a relationship, a subsequent breach of promise arising from a change in personal or practical circumstances cannot be equated to a misconception of fact that vitiates legal consent.

The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed, "An educated and independent adult, upon entering into a consensual relationship, must also recognise that the law cannot be invoked to criminalise the mere failure of a relationship. The dissolution of a relationship, by itself, does not give rise to criminal liability. Such matters must be approached with sensitivity, restraint, and due respect for the autonomy and choices of both individuals involved."

Senior Advocate Amit Daga appeared for the Applicant, whereas AGA Rabindra Kumar Singh appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts of the Case

The opposite party no. 2/Complainant filed a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that the applicant, a distant relative, established a physical relationship with her under a false promise of marriage. It was further alleged that the relationship continued for approximately five years, during which the applicant continuously exploited her and subjected her to physical assault, verbal abuse, and criminal intimidation whenever she requested him to fulfill his promise of marriage.

During the course of the investigation, the victim reiterated her allegations in her statements recorded by the police. However, her version subsequently expanded to include claims of blackmail involving an obscene video and allegations that a subsequent marriage solemnized between them was merely a sham.

Following the medical examination of the victim, which revealed no internal or external injuries, and upon completion of the statutory investigation, the investigating officer submitted a chargesheet. Consequently, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued a summoning order against the applicant. The applicant moved the High Court by invoking its inherent powers, seeking the quashing of the chargesheet, the summoning order, and the entire criminal proceedings pending before the subordinate court.

Contentions of the Applicant

The Applicant contended that the victim was a mature, highly qualified adult who willingly maintained the relationship for five years, and the complete absence of physical injuries or contemporary complaints substantiated the plea of consent.

The applicant argued that there was no fraudulent intent or deception from the inception of the relationship, as the applicant genuinely intended to marry her but was unable to do so initially due to his failure to secure employment.

It was further contended that the applicant did, in fact, solemnize a valid marriage with the prosecutrix at a temple in the presence of their respective families, thereby falsifying the claim of a "false promise of marriage."

The applicant asserted that the victim's statements were inconsistent, ever-changing, and lacked specific particulars regarding the alleged offences, while the charges of assault and criminal intimidation were merely ornamental and added to give a grave color to a matrimonial dispute.

Contentions of the State and the Complainant

It was contended that the applicant continuously exploited the victim over a prolonged period by extending a deceptive assurance of marriage which he never truly intended to honor as a lasting matrimonial commitment. They argued that the subsequent marriage was a calculated, sham maneuver executed solely to escape criminal liability and obtain protection from arrest, as the applicant abandoned the victim immediately thereafter and refused to allow her into the matrimonial home. It was submitted that the consent of the prosecutrix was vitiated by fraud and misconception of fact, meaning it could not be treated as legal consent under the law.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that the core point for determination was whether the material collected by the investigating agency disclosed a prima facie case of rape against the applicant, or whether the continuation of the trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

It was observed that the prosecutrix was a mature, highly intelligent, and well-educated adult at the time the relationship commenced, making her fully capable of understanding the consequences of her actions. The Court noted that she had actively engaged in a continuous, long-term physical relationship of her own volition over a period of five years without raising any contemporary complaints or grievances.

The Court highlighted that there is a growing and disquieting trend where long-standing, consensual romantic partnerships are given a color of criminality once they turn sour. It was remarked that an educated, independent adult entering into such a relationship must recognize that the law cannot be weaponized to criminalize the mere failure or dissolution of a romantic bond.

"When a woman of competent age, having sufficient understanding of the physical activities in which she is involved on the basis of a promise of marriage, understands the risks associated with such a physical relationship as there is a significant difference between marriage and a mere promise of marriage", the Court remarked.

Relying upon a catena of judgments from the Supreme Court, the Court observed that a breach of promise to marry does not automatically constitute rape under the guise of a misconception of fact. To attract criminal liability, it must be established that the accused harboured a fraudulent intent and an element of cheating right from the inception of the relationship, which was completely absent in the present case.

The Court took serious note of the fact that the parties had actually solemnized a marriage in a temple shortly after the registration of the FIR. This sequence of events led the Court to conclude that the criminal machinery was set in motion primarily to exert undue pressure on the applicant to marry the prosecutrix, rather than to redress genuine sexual violence.

"At the same time, it cannot be overlocked that an adult, and especially an educated and independent adult who voluntarily enters into a romantic relationship, after exercising free and conscious choice, must be aware of the inherent uncertainties attached to such relationships. It is neither inevitable nor assured that every romantic relationship will result in marriage. Relationships may end for a variety of personal, practical, or circumstantial reasons, including incompatibility or change in individual priorities", the Court observed.

It was further observed that the supplementary charges of physical assault, verbal abuse, and criminal intimidation were completely bereft of material particulars and unsupported by any medical evidence, rendering them merely ornamental in nature.

Consequently, the Court held that the case squarely fell within the exceptional categories carved out by the Apex Court for the exercise of inherent powers.

The Court concluded that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and a gross miscarriage of justice, thereby rendering the chargesheet, the cognizance order, and the entire underlying proceedings liable to be quashed.

Cause Title: Sanjay Saroj @ Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:127913] 

Appearances:

Applicant: Senior Advocate Amit Daga and Advocate Ramesh Chandra

Opposite Parties: AGA Rabindra Kumar Singh and Advocate Arvind Kumar Bhardwaj

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: