Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Rajnish Singh @ Soni - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1055 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP(CRL.) No(s). 8549 of 2023)
Decided On : 03-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 384, 323, 504 and 506 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 64, 308, 115, 352 and 351] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Rape, extortion, hurt, insult and criminal intimidation – Intimate relationship between appellant and complainant – Complainant, a highly qualified female, was major at the time when her relationship with appellant sprouted – First act of sexual intercourse between appellant and complainant is alleged to have taken place in year 2006 and that too in her own house – However, at that time, complainant did not make any complaint to anyone, including her own family members – It is difficult to swallow that complainant, a well-qualified major girl, was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by an outsider in her own house where her parents were present and still, they did not get a whiff about the incident – Complainant’s allegations seem to be a well-orchestrated story and nothing beyond that – It is hard to believe that complainant, being a highly qualified and well-placed major woman, kept on bending to demands of appellant for a period of nearly 16 years without raising any protest to any quarter – Prolonged period of 16 years during which sexual relations continued unabatedly between parties, is sufficient to conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship – No reasonable man would accept the version that complainant allowed accused to establish sexual relations with her over a period of 16 years purely under misconception of marriage – It is only when it came to knowledge of complainant that appellant was getting married to another woman, in an attempt to stop his marriage, she filed complaint – Appellant and complainant were in a long-standing live-in relationship during which they even performed marriage rituals – It is a clear case of a love affair/live in relationship gone sour – Allegations of complainant are full of material contradictions and are ex-facie unbelievable – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 21, 25, 29, 30, 31, 33, 37, 38 and 39)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 375 read with Section 90 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 63 read with Section 28] – Rape – Misconception of fact – There is distinction between rape and consensual intercourse – Accused is not liable for offence of rape if victim has wilfully agreed to maintain sexual relations – Prosecutrix can agree to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for accused – There is distinction between mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise – Section 90 IPC cannot be called into aid in such a situation, to pardon act of a girl in entirety and fasten criminal liability on other, unless court is assured of fact that from very beginning, accused had never really intended to marry her. (Paras 34, 35 and 36)
Facts of the case:
Appellant herein has preferred the instant appeal by special leave, assailing the order dated 24th April, 2023, passed by Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing petition filed by the appellant, being Application U/S 482 No. 43177 of 2022, for quashment of proceedings of Criminal Case arising out of chargesheet in Case Crime under Sections 376, 384, 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Order dated 24th April, 2023, passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad quashed and set aside and as a consequence, impugned FIR and all consequent proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the appellant are also quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
(Sandeep Mehta, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant herein has preferred the instant appeal by special leave, assailing the order dated 24th April, 2023, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘High Court’] dismissing the petition filed by the appellant, being Application U/S 482 No. 43177 of 2022, for quashment of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1246 of 2022 arising out of chargesheet in Case Crime No. 269 of 2022 under Sections 376, 384, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602[Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘IPC’] at Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah.
4. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the present appeal are reproduced hereinbelow.
5. Ms. A, respondent No. 2-complainant3[For short, ‘complainant’], lodged an FIR in Case Crime No. 269 of 2022 dated 5th July, 2022, against the appellant at Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah alleging, inter alia, that she is a resident of village Kudaria and was qualified with degrees in M.Com and B.Ed. and since 2008, she had been serving on the post of Lecturer in AFS Bhemora College in Lucknow.
6. It was alleged that the accused, appellant herein, sometime in the year 2006, sneaked into the house of the complainant in the night and subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. She was neither able to scream nor could call out for help as the appellant had gagged her mouth due to which her parents, who were also present in the house, were unable to get a wind of the incident. She warned the appellant that she would disclose about the incident to her family members, upon which the appellant apologised profoundly and requested her to remain quiet and gave her an assurance of marriage. The complainant, therefore, neither lodged any complaint nor did she take other action in respect of the incident of sexual assault upon her.
7. The appellant initially, was working as a constable in the police department. Later, in 2009, he joined as a Clerk in the State Bank of India in Dhani branch of Maharajganj district. In the intervening period, the intimacy between the appellant and the complainant continued to flourish. The appellant had once called the complainant to Maharajganj, where he made her to consume some intoxicant mixed with ENO, without her knowledge, which made her semi-conscious. Taking advantage, the appellant subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. He not only video- graphed the offending acts but later, showed it to the complainant when she regained consciousness. The complainant, fearing retribution in society, did not share information about the said incident with anyone. Subsequently, the complainant became pregnant which was confirmed with a pregnancy detection kit. When this information came to the knowledge of the appellant, he mixed some medication in water and made the complainant to drink it in order to cause miscarriage. Since the appellant continuously blackmailed and threatened the complainant using the obscene video, she did not tell anyone about the abortion.
8. The complainant had initially gone to meet the appellant out of her own free will, but the appellant, later on, pressurised her under the threat of making the obscene video/pictures viral. She would therefore, meet him only with the objective of collecting the video from him so that she could delete it. In 2015, the appellant called the complainant to Pratapgarh and threatened her that if she did not accede to his demands, he would make the video viral.
9. Additionally, it was also alleged in the FIR that the appellant forcibly took money from the complainant on a number of occasions. In 2011, the appellant had taken a cheque of Rs.94,000/- from the complainant, however, he did not return a dime to her. As the appellant threatened her by using the obscene video of intimate relations that he possessed, she did not complain to anyone, about the aforesaid criminal acts that had taken
Rape – Misconception of fact – There is distinction between rape and consensual intercourse – Accused is not liable for offence of rape if victim has wilfully agreed to maintain sexual relations – Th....
Prolonged consensual relationships negate claims of rape based on false promises of marriage.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of voluntary consent and the absence of deceit or false promises in determining the nature of a relationship and distinguishing b....
Consent in consensual relationships invalidates allegations of rape; merely non-fulfilling marriage promises does not constitute a crime when prior consent for sexual interactions is established.
(1) Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – High Court does not have to go in detail by way of minute examination about correctness or otherwise of facts alleged – Court has to examine the same by taking....
Section 375 of IPC states that a man is said to commit rape if he has had any form of sexual intercourse without consent of a woman.
Consensual sexual relationships do not constitute rape even if they are based on a promise of marriage that was not fulfilled, unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
