‘Long-Term Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Treated As Rape’: Allahabad High Court
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that a long-term consensual relationship between two adults cannot be treated as rape merely because a promise of marriage was not ultimately fulfilled. The court quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of rape, observing that the relationship was based on mutual consent and that no prima facie offence was made out.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that a long-term consensual relationship between two adults cannot be treated as rape merely because a promise of marriage was not ultimately fulfilled. The court quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of rape, observing that the relationship was based on mutual consent and that no prima facie offence was made out.
The order was passed by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh while allowing a petition filed by Sanjay Saroj alias Sanjay Kumar, who had sought the quashing of proceedings arising from an FIR registered in 2019 in Prayagraj.
Court Finds Relationship Was Consensual
After examining the material on record, the court concluded that the relationship between the complainant and the accused had continued for several years and was based on consent. ‘Marriage Is Not a Service Contract’: Bombay High Court Says Wife Not Cooking or Cleaning Is Not Cruelty.
In its 34-page judgment, the court clarified that if a woman had given full consent to establish physical relations, the accused could not be held guilty of rape merely because the relationship later ended or marriage did not take place.
The court observed that no offence of rape was made out and noted that the FIR appeared to have been filed after the complainant became unhappy with the accused's conduct. Husband’s Duty To Maintain Wife Continues After Death: Allahabad High Court.
FIR Filed in 2019
According to the case record, the complainant, a resident of Pratapgarh, had moved to Prayagraj in 2014 to prepare for competitive examinations. The accused, who was a distant relative, allegedly helped her with accommodation and studies.
The two subsequently entered into a relationship.
In her complaint, the woman alleged that the accused established physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage and later refused to marry her. She further alleged that he assaulted and threatened her whenever she raised the issue of marriage.
During the investigation, she also claimed that the accused had recorded an objectionable video to blackmail her.
However, the medical examination reportedly did not find evidence of injuries.
Marriage Took Place After FIR
The High Court noted that the complainant eventually married the accused after the FIR had been lodged.
According to the court, this fact indicated that the criminal case had been initiated to pressure the accused into marriage.
The court observed that the matter fell within the "rarest of the rare" category where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to a "gross abuse of the judicial process."
Court Relies on Supreme Court Judgments
The High Court referred to several Supreme Court rulings, including those in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, Ravish Singh Rana and Deepak Gulati.
The court reiterated that a rape charge based on a promise of marriage can be sustained only when it is established that the promise was false from the very beginning and that consent was obtained solely on that basis.
After analysing the facts, the court found no material suggesting that the accused intended to deceive the complainant from the outset.
The court also noted that the relationship continued from 2014 to 2019, nearly five years, making it difficult to conclude that consent was given each time solely because of a promise of marriage.
Proceedings Quashed
The High Court held that treating the breakdown of a long-term consensual relationship as rape would amount to misuse of criminal law.
Describing the matter as a consensual relationship that later turned sour rather than one founded on deception, the court ruled that continuation of criminal proceedings was not justified.
Referring to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal case, the court held that the matter fell within categories warranting the exercise of its inherent powers and quashed the entire proceedings pending before the Prayagraj trial court.
(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Jun 20, 2026 11:56 AM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).