Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Shrey Gupta - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Anr. - Respondents
Application U/S 482 No. - 6789 of 2019
Decided On : 01-10-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 375 and 376 - Quashing of charge-sheet - Allegations of rape and extortion - The informant alleged a long-standing consensual relationship with the applicant, which turned contentious after the applicant's engagement to another woman - The court found no evidence of rape as the relationship was consensual and the promise to marry was not false from inception - The FIR was deemed to be lodged with ulterior motives, lacking substantiation - Application allowed, proceedings quashed. (Paras 1-46)
Facts of the case:
The informant alleged that the applicant, after promising to marry her, exploited her sexually over several years, but later engaged another woman, leading to accusations of rape and extortion.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the relationship was consensual, and the allegations of rape were fabricated due to the applicant's engagement with another woman.
Issues: Whether the relationship constituted rape given the long-standing consensual nature and the circumstances surrounding the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a consensual relationship, even with a promise of marriage, does not amount to rape unless there is evidence of coercion or deceit from the outset.
Result: Application allowed, and the charge-sheet along with proceedings quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Anish Kumar Gupta, J.
1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jagdev Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Mohd. Shoaib Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of Charge-sheet dated 09.08.2018 in S.T. No. 826 of 2018 as well as the entire criminal proceedings in Case Crime No. 59 of 2018 under Sections 376 and 386 I.P.C., Police Station- Mahila Thana, District-Moradabad, pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Moradabad.
FACTS
3. The brief facts of the instant case are that on 21.03.2018, the opposite party no.2 had lodged an F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 0059 of 2018 for the offences u/S 376 and 386 I.P.C. at the Woman Police Station, District-Moradabad. It has been submitted by the opposite party no. 2/ the informant that she is the resident of Mohalla H-9, Lajpat Nagar near Guru Govind Singh Park, Police Station-Katghar, District- Moradabad. It is alleged that her husband- Sanjay Goyal, was suffering from disease of sugar for last 15 years and was unable to move frequently and despite various treatments given the same could not improve his condition. In the meantime, her husband has introduced the applicant/Shrey Gupta, and told the informant that the applicant is a faithful person and he will take her care after him. Gradually, the applicant became very close to the informant and allegedly told the informant that her husband would be alive only for few more days, thereafter, both of them would marry. Taking the informant in his confidence and promising her to marry in future, he started to have physical relationship with the informant. The husband of the informant had ultimately died on 29.05.2017 and even after the death of her husband the applicant continued to visit the home of the informant and continued to have physical relationship with the applicant in the home as well as in hotels outside. The informant had many a time asked him to marry her, then, he avoided the marriage telling that first let her sister be married and thereafter he will marry her. Subsequently, the informant came to know about the engagement of the applicant with one other lady on 31.12.2017. Then, the informant told the applicant that he was continuously raping her on the pretext of promise to marry and now he has got engaged with some other lady.
4. Then, on 17.01.2018 at around 6:00 P.M. the applicant allegedly gave a phone call to the informant asking her to come to Rampur Doraha, where he will marry her in a temple and after marriage they will get the marriage registered in court. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that on such assurance of the applicant herein the informant had reached at Rampur Doraha, then, the applicant told her to come with him and they will marry and thereafter, the applicant had taken her at a godown situated at Rampur Doraha and thereafter by putting a countrymade pistol on the head of the informant, he forcibly committed rape on her and also prepared a video clipping and thereafter told that he will not marry her and if she tells about the incident to anyone else, her video clip shall be made public. Thereafter, the informant allegedly came back to her house and it is further alleged that thereafter the applicant has started demanding Rs. 50,00,000/- within 15 days and threatened that if his demand is not, fulfilled, then he will kill both her sons and make the video clip public.
5. On the aforesaid allegations the instant F.I.R. was registered against the applicant herein. Thereafter, the matter was investigated by the police official and after recording the statements of various persons, who have alleged that there was a financial dispute between the applicant and the informant with regard to an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, which is to be paid by the son of the informant to the applicant and the instant F.I.R. was lodg
A long-standing consensual relationship does not constitute rape unless there is evidence of coercion or deceit from the outset.
Consent under Section 375 cannot be considered valid if based on a false promise of marriage if the promise was not made with fraudulent intent from the outset. Subsequently, a prolonged consensual r....
Consent obtained under threat or misconception is invalid; initial coercive acts establish a prima facie case of rape.
Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage does not constitute rape if the accused had no intention to deceive at the time of the promise.
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.
The distinction between consensual relations and rape lies in the perception and intention behind consent; the breach of a promise to marry does not equate to misconception if the relationship is con....
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.
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
