Back
Discharges Congress MP Rakesh Rathore, Says Rape Allegation 'Absurd'
In a significant ruling, the has discharged Congress MP from Sitapur, Rakesh Rathore, from all charges in a 2025 rape case, observing that the prosecution's story was so "cooked up" and "absurd" that it could not be believed by any person of ordinary prudence. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, presiding over the Lucknow Bench, allowed Rathore's criminal revision and set aside the trial court's order that had rejected his discharge application.
The Allegations and Investigation
The case originated from a complaint filed in by a 49-year-old married woman, who alleged that she came into contact with Rathore in when he was an MLA. She claimed that Rathore offered her political protection and an alliance, eventually appointing her as District Chairperson–Women of the , Sitapur. According to the FIR, the complainant alleged that Rathore raped her at his house in and subsequently maintained physical relations under the promise of marriage. After Rathore became an MP in , she alleged he forced her to sign blank papers and threatened to defame her.
The investigation included a medico-legal examination that found
"no signs of use of force"
and no recent forceful penetration injury, though sexual violence could not be ruled out. A mobile phone conversation between the complainant and Rathore was also seized, with the
confirming Rathore's voice. The transcript showed the complainant referring to their five-year physical relationship and asking Rathore to divorce his wife.
Arguments Before the Court
Rathore's counsel, led by Senior Advocates and Purnendu Chakravarty, argued that the material on record—including the phone transcript and the complainant's own statements—established a long-standing consensual relationship. They contended that both parties were married with adult children, and the complainant could not have been induced by a promise of marriage she knew was impossible during the subsistence of her own marriage. They relied on precedents in and to argue that consensual relationships turning sour cannot be given the colour of rape.
The Additional Advocate General for the State, supported by the complainant's counsel, submitted that the allegation of forcible rape in was independent of the subsequent consensual relationship. They argued that at the discharge stage, the court could not sift and weigh evidence, and the trial court had rightly found a prima facie case.
Court's Legal Analysis
The High Court conducted a limited sifting of evidence as permitted under the principles laid down in Sajjan Kumar v. . It noted that the complainant was a politically active, middle-aged woman with grown-up children, who had willingly accepted Rathore's offer of political alliance. The Court highlighted the inconsistencies between the FIR and the medico-legal report, where the complainant stated that no physical violence, restraints, or verbal threats were used—directly contradicting the rape allegation.
The Court further observed that the complainant's husband had stated that she frequently visited Rathore's house, even returning home in the mornings. The transcript of the phone call showed the complainant initiating contact and complaining that Rathore had sent her back with her sons. Justice Vidyarthi concluded:
"These statements indicate a long term consensual extra-marital relationship between two married persons of matured ages and it belies the allegation of rape under allurement of marriage."
The Court also found the complainant's claim that Rathore could get her divorce "within two minutes" to be inherently improbable, noting that no reasonable person would believe such an assertion. Relying on Biswajyoti Chatterjee , the Court held that a prolonged consensual relationship cannot be recast as rape when the relationship sours.
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
On the absurdity of the case:
"The prosecution material indicates that the complainant has cooked up a story which no reasonable person of ordinary prudence can believe."
-
On the nature of the relationship:
"These statements indicate a long term consensual extra-marital relationship between two married persons of matured ages."
-
On the abuse of process:
"The continuation of criminal proceedings instituted on such frivolous and self-contradictory allegations would certainly amount to an abuse of the process of law."
-
On judicial propriety: The Court criticized the trial court for hastily framing charges even after being informed that a revision had been filed in the High Court, stating that "judicial propriety demanded" a different approach.
The Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision, set aside the trial court's order dated , and discharged Rakesh Rathore from all charges under Sections 64(2), 351(3), 127(2), and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Court held that the material on record did not give rise to a strong suspicion of guilt, and continuing the trial would result in a failure of justice. The ruling reinforces the principle that consensual relationships between mature adults, even if extra-marital, cannot be retroactively criminalized as rape based on a promise of marriage that was never legally feasible.
