2026 Supreme(All) 530

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Vivek Kumar Singh, J.
Sanjay @ Sanjay Kashyap – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Opposite Parties
Application U/s 528 BNSS No. - 29363 of 2025
Decided On : 20-05-2026

A breach of promise to marry in a long-standing consensual relationship does not constitute rape. Criminal proceedings for rape can be quashed if the evidence fails to establish that the accused made a fraudulent promise of marriage with no intention of fulfillment at the inception of the relationship.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 376, 323, 342, 506 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Consensual sexual relationship vs. Rape - Allegation of rape on false promise of marriage - The jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases (Paras 15, 17). A mere breach of a promise to marry does not constitute a 'false promise' or vitiate consent under law, unless it is proven that the accused had no intention of fulfilling the promise from the inception of the relationship (Paras 29, 36).

(B) Criminal Procedure - Abuse of process - Inherent power of High Court - Where allegations in a complaint, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose a cognizable offence or are inherently improbable, the court is justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings to prevent the misuse of the criminal justice system as an instrument of oppression (Paras 16, 18, 46).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the quashing of a charge-sheet and criminal proceedings initiated against him under charges of rape, criminal intimidation, and wrongful restraint. The complainant alleged that the petitioner engaged in sexual relations with her under a promise of marriage, which the petitioner failed to fulfill. The parties were in a relationship for approximately one year. Following the deterioration of the relationship, the complainant filed an report alleging sexual violence and physical assault.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that there was no material evidence to suggest that the petitioner had no intention to marry the complainant at the inception of the relationship. The nature of the relationship was consensual and sustained over a significant duration. The Court highlighted a concerning trend where broken personal relationships are improperly converted into criminal prosecutions for rape, which trivializes the gravity of the offence and causes irreparable injustice to the accused.

Issues: The main issues were whether a breach of a promise to marry could be legally equated to a 'false promise' inducing consent for sexual intercourse, and whether the continuation of a criminal proceeding arising from a failed consensual relationship constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.

Ratio Decidendi: A consensual sexual relationship between adults, even when linked to an unfulfilled desire for marriage, does not constitute rape unless consent was obtained through a fraudulent misrepresentation made with the clear intent to deceive from the beginning. Absent evidence of such deceit or coercion, a failed personal relationship does not attract criminal liability.

Result: Application allowed; criminal proceedings and charge-sheet quashed.