While quashing the entire criminal proceedings against a man, who had been accused of raping a woman on the pretext of a promise to marry her, the Allahabad High Court has observed that a long-standing consensual adulterous physical relationship without any element of deception from its inception would not amount to rape within the meaning of section 375 IPC, which defines rape as sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, without her consent.
In addition to it, the high court also held that a promise of marriage does not automatically render consensual intercourse rape unless it is proven that such a promise was false from the outset.
“Every promise of marriage would not be considered as a fact of misconception for consensual sexual intercourse unless it is established that such promise of marriage was a false promise of marriage on the part of the accused since the beginning of such relationship. Unless it is alleged that from the very beginning of such 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 observed.
Allowing a petition filed by one Shrey Gupta, Justice Anish Kumar Gupta quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner pending before the court below at Moradabad. The petitioner was booked for rape on a complaint by a woman.
In her FIR lodged at Mahila Thana at Moradabad, the woman alleged that the petitioner had established a physical relationship with her under the pretext of marriage after the death of her husband.
She claimed that Gupta had repeatedly promised to marry her but later broke the promise and got engaged to another woman. She also accused him of extortion, alleging that Gupta demanded Rs 50 lakh to prevent the release of a video showing their intimate encounters.
Based on her allegations, the trial court took cognizance of the charge sheet dated August 9, 2018, filed against the petitioner under section 376 (rape) and section 386 (extortion) of the IPC.
However, the accused moved to the High Court under section 482 (inherent powers of high court) under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking to quash the charge sheet and the entire criminal proceedings.
He argued that the relationship had been consensual throughout and that the charges of rape and extortion were baseless.
Against this backdrop, the court reviewed the facts and observed that the complainant, who is a widow, and the accused had maintained a consensual physical relationship for nearly 12-13 years even when the complainant’s husband was alive.
The court noted that the complainant-woman exerted undue influence over the petitioner, who was much younger than her and was an employee in her late husband’s business.
The court also examined the legal definition of rape under section 375 of the IPC, which emphasizes that for an act to constitute rape, the woman’s consent must be obtained through coercion, threats, or under a misconception of fact.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Naim Ahamed v. State of Haryana, the High Court reiterated that it would be folly to treat every breach of promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the offense of rape under Section 376 IPC.
Accordingly, the court in its decision dated October 1 quashed the criminal proceedings against Shrey Gupta, holding that the allegations did not meet the legal standards required for charges of rape or extortion.