In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has clarified that a consensual physical relationship between two adults over a long period cannot be termed as rape solely because the relationship later breaks down or a promise of marriage is not fulfilled.
The court emphasized that criminal law should not be misused in such cases and warned against turning failed relationships into criminal prosecutions.
The judgment came in a case filed against Ajay Saini, a resident of Rampur. A single-judge bench led by Justice Avnish Saxena quashed the chargesheet and entire criminal proceedings pending before a lower court in Rampur after hearing the accused’s petition.
According to case details, a woman had filed an FIR in 2024 alleging rape. She claimed that in 2019, the accused took her to Moradabad on the pretext of providing a job, administered an intoxicant, and sexually assaulted her. She further alleged that the accused continued to exploit her sexually for four years under a false promise of marriage. The complaint was filed only after she learned that the accused was planning to marry someone else.
However, the court noted several contradictions in the complainant’s statements. While the FIR mentioned a hotel room as the place of the incident, later statements suggested that the intoxicant was administered in a restaurant. The court also observed that the complainant was an educated individual and had not reported the matter for over four years.
In its judgment, the court concluded that the relationship between the two parties was consensual and continued for a considerable period. It held that giving a criminal color to such a relationship merely because it ended later would be inappropriate.
The court further remarked that provisions related to serious offences like rape must be applied only in clear cases involving coercion, force, or deception. It stated, “Converting every failed relationship into a rape case not only dilutes the gravity of the offence but also imposes an irreversible social stigma on the accused.”
This ruling is being seen as a key precedent in cases involving allegations of rape following a failed promise of marriage.
