The case originated from a FIR filedalleging repeated sexual exploitation and blackmail by appellant over a 16-year period, beginning in 2006, under the false promise of marriage. The appellant argued the relationship was consensual, a “love affair” that soured, while the respondent asserted the appellant sexually exploited the complainant through false promises and threats involving intimate videos. The Court ultimately quashed the FIR, concluding that the long duration of the relationship and contradictions in the complainant’s statements indicated a consensual “love affair/live in relationship gone sour,” rather than rape under false pretenses.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Rape – Petition for quashment of the proceedings of Criminal Case arising out of chargesheet in Case Crime under Sections 376, 384, 323, 504, 506 IPC.
Complainant, a highly qualified female, was major at the time when her relationship with the appellant sprouted – The first act of sexual intercourse between the appellant and the complainant is alleged to have taken place in the year 2006 and that too in her own house – However, at that time, the complainant did not make any complaint to anyone, including her own family members, that the appellant had established sexual relations with her based on an express promise to marry her in future
Complainant’s allegations seem to be a well-orchestrated story and nothing beyond that – It was nearly 16 years since the first incident, in a highly belated FIR, that the complainant alleged, for the first time, that the appellant, who was on friendly terms with her, forcibly subjected her to sexual intercourse in the year 2006 – The prolonged period of 16 years during which the sexual relations continued unabatedly between the parties, is sufficient to conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship – The complainant and the appellant were posted at different places pursuing their respective jobs – On a few occasions, the appellant would visit the complainant at her place whereas on other occasions, the complainant was called by the appellant to his house where these acts of fornication continued unabatedly till the year 2020/2021.
Held that it is almost impossible to swallow the version of the complainant that for the entire period of 16 years, she unreservedly allowed the appellant to subject her to repeated acts of sexual intercourse under the impression that the accused would on someday act upon his promise of marriage – Present is a case wherein the appellant is liable to be prosecuted for having sexually exploited/assaulted the complainant based on a false promise of marriage – The allegations of the complainant are full of material contradictions and are ex facie unbelievable – Allowing the prosecution of the appellant to continue for the offences alleged, under Sections 376, 384, 323, 504 and 506 IPC would be nothing short of a gross abuse of the process of law – Order, passed by the High Court liable to be quashed and set aside and as a consequence, the impugned FIR No. 269 of 2022 and all the consequent proceedings sought to be taken there under against the appellant are also quashed and set aside.
(Para 21 to 39)
Rajnish Singh @ Soni V. State Of U.P.
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 308: (DoJ 03-03-2025)
