The Allahabad High Court has observed that a consensual physical relationship between two adults cannot subsequently be termed as rape merely because the relationship ended or the promise of marriage was not fulfilled.
The observation came while allowing an application filed by accused Ajay Saini under Section 528 BNSS, 2023. A single-judge Bench of Justice Avnish Saxena quashed the charge sheet, the cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings pending before the ACJM-I court in Rampur.
Referring to the Supreme Court decisions in Ravish Singh Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1055 and Prashant vs. NCT of Delhi (2025) 5 SCC 764, the Court noted that,
“……..the two able minded adults, if maintained a long term physical relations, then a presumption would arise that they have voluntarily chosen the consensual relationship and subsequent non fulfillment of promise of marriage would not attract any offence.”
The Court further noted that the primary issue for consideration in the present application is whether the material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, including the statements of the victim, discloses a prima facie case of rape, or whether allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The Court must also examine whether the case falls within the category of the rarest of rare situations warranting the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice by quashing the criminal proceedings.
The Bench also reiterated that the powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS are wide but must be exercised cautiously and only in exceptional cases. These powers are meant to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
Examining the facts of the case, the Court noted that the alleged incident was stated to have occurred in 2019, but the FIR did not specify the exact date, time or place of the incident. It also did not explain how the victim met the accused or why she believed that he could arrange a job for her at a hospital in Moradabad.
According to the FIR, the accused allegedly took the victim to Moradabad on the pretext of a job interview at a private hospital, but the name of the hospital was not mentioned.
The Court also found inconsistencies between the FIR and the victim’s statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS and Section 164 CrPC. While the FIR referred to a “hotel room,” the later statements described the place as a “restaurant-cum-hotel” near Buddha Bazaar, close to the railway station. The FIR also failed to mention the name of the hotel.
The Court observed that several other contradictions were also present between the FIR and the victim’s subsequent statements.
Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Samadhan s/o Sitaram Manmothe vs. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528, the Bench observed that broken or failed relationships should not subsequently be given the colour of rape, as such actions amount to an abuse of the criminal justice system.
The victim lodged an FIR at the Kotwali Police Station in Rampur on December 3, 2024. She alleged that in 2019, after completing her GNM course and while looking for employment, she came in contact with the accused.
The accused allegedly took her to Moradabad on the pretext of arranging employment at a private hospital, administered an intoxicating substance to her at a hotel, and raped her.
She further alleged that the accused continued to maintain relations with her for four years on the assurance of marriage and that she filed the complaint after learning that he was planning to marry someone else.
After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 376, 328, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. Charge sheets were also filed against his father and brother under provisions related to assault and criminal intimidation.
Counsel for the accused argued that the FIR had been lodged four years after the alleged incident and that the criminal case was filed only after the victim came to know about the accused’s proposed marriage elsewhere.
On the other hand, counsel for the State and the victim contended that the police had filed the charge sheet only after collecting sufficient evidence during investigation, and therefore the proceedings should not be quashed.
The Court also noted that the victim was an educated person and had remained in a relationship with the accused for about four years, while the complaint did not provide specific details of the alleged incidents.
The Bench further referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra (2024) 11 SCC 398 and observed that,
” ……..where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, which cannot be said with certainty that the physical relation was purely because of alleged promise of marriage. A woman may have reasons to have physical relationship other than promise of marriage, like, the personal liking for the male partner.”
Emphasising that the offence of rape is not automatically made out merely because a marriage does not eventually take place, the Court held that the present matter fell within the exceptional category warranting exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the accused.
Case: Ajay Saini vs State of U.P. and Another
Case No: Application U/s 528 BNSS No. 15904 of 2025
Date of Order: 16.03.2026
Status: Allowed
