1. Quashing of criminal proceedings for rape, criminal intimidation, and IT Act offences arising from alleged false promise of marriage and concealment of marital status. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 1522
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Madan Pal Singh, J.
Amit Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Another - Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. - 15551 of 2020
Decided On : 30-09-2026
Important Points
A sexual relationship based on a promise to marry constitutes rape only if the promise was false from its inception with dishonest intent. A breach of promise without initial fraudulent intent in a consensual adult relationship does not attract criminal liability under Section 376 IPC.
Subject
Criminal Law - Sexual Offences
Act Referred
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA : S.528
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.323, S.375, S.376, S.504, S.506, S.90
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT : S.67(a)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.161, S.164, S.428, S.482
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.323, S.375, S.376, S.504, S.506, S.90
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT : S.67(a)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.161, S.164, S.428, S.482
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 and 90 - Information Technology Act - Section 67(A) - Quashing of proceedings - Distinction between "false promise to marry" and "breach of promise" - For an offence under Section 376 IPC to be made out on the basis of a promise of marriage, it must be established that the promise was false from the inception and made with the sole intention of deceiving the woman to obtain her consent for sexual relations (Paras 20, 24, 28, 30).
(B) Consent under Section 90 IPC - Misconception of fact - Consent is not vitiated if the failure to marry is due to subsequent circumstances or breach of promise without initial dishonest intent - A prolonged physical relationship between mature partners without protest indicates a consensual relationship rather than one based on a false promise of marriage (Paras 29, 31, 34, 35).
Facts of the case:
An application was filed to quash a charge-sheet and criminal proceedings involving charges of rape, assault, criminal intimidation, and sharing obscene content. The complainant alleged that the accused, a police official, induced her into a sexual relationship through a false promise of marriage and subsequent blackmail via obscene media. The accused contended that the relationship was entirely consensual, asserting that the complainant was an educated adult who was aware of his existing marriage and had agreed to wait for a legal divorce to be finalized.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the complainant, being an educated adult, had voluntarily traveled and stayed with the accused in a hotel. Evidence, including communication and photographs, demonstrated mutual affection and confirmed that the complainant was aware of the accused's marital status. Furthermore, the investigation failed to produce any evidence of the alleged obscene videos or photographs used for blackmail.
Issues: Whether the physical relationship established was based on a "false promise of marriage" vitiating consent under Section 90 IPC, or whether it was a consensual relationship between two adults.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a consensual sexual relationship followed by a refusal to marry does not constitute rape unless it is proven that the accused had no intention of fulfilling the promise from the very beginning. In the absence of evidence showing initial dishonest intent, and given the proof that the complainant knew of the accused's marital status and agreed to wait for a divorce, the relationship was deemed consensual. The mere failure to marry due to later circumstances does not convert a consensual act into a criminal offence.
Result: Charge-sheet and the entire proceedings of the criminal case are quashed. (Para 47)
(B) Consent under Section 90 IPC - Misconception of fact - Consent is not vitiated if the failure to marry is due to subsequent circumstances or breach of promise without initial dishonest intent - A prolonged physical relationship between mature partners without protest indicates a consensual relationship rather than one based on a false promise of marriage (Paras 29, 31, 34, 35).
Facts of the case:
An application was filed to quash a charge-sheet and criminal proceedings involving charges of rape, assault, criminal intimidation, and sharing obscene content. The complainant alleged that the accused, a police official, induced her into a sexual relationship through a false promise of marriage and subsequent blackmail via obscene media. The accused contended that the relationship was entirely consensual, asserting that the complainant was an educated adult who was aware of his existing marriage and had agreed to wait for a legal divorce to be finalized.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the complainant, being an educated adult, had voluntarily traveled and stayed with the accused in a hotel. Evidence, including communication and photographs, demonstrated mutual affection and confirmed that the complainant was aware of the accused's marital status. Furthermore, the investigation failed to produce any evidence of the alleged obscene videos or photographs used for blackmail.
Issues: Whether the physical relationship established was based on a "false promise of marriage" vitiating consent under Section 90 IPC, or whether it was a consensual relationship between two adults.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a consensual sexual relationship followed by a refusal to marry does not constitute rape unless it is proven that the accused had no intention of fulfilling the promise from the very beginning. In the absence of evidence showing initial dishonest intent, and given the proof that the complainant knew of the accused's marital status and agreed to wait for a divorce, the relationship was deemed consensual. The mere failure to marry due to later circumstances does not convert a consensual act into a criminal offence.
Result: Charge-sheet and the entire proceedings of the criminal case are quashed. (Para 47)
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
- offences against the person
- offences against property
- practice and procedure
- family law
Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Anshul Tiwari, Renu Singh, Vinod Prakash Srivastava (Senior Adv.)
For the Respondent: G.A., Jai Prakash Singh
For the Applicant : Anshul Tiwari, Renu Singh, Vinod Prakash Srivastava (Senior Adv.)
For the Respondent: G.A., Jai Prakash Singh
Table of Contents
2. Prosecution alleges false promise of marriage and concealment of existing marriage; defense contends consensual relationship and absence of initial dishonest intent. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. Relationship was consensual; no evidence of initial false promise; continued relationship and voluntary conduct negate misconception of fact; allegations of blackmail unsupported. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 )
4. To attract rape for false promise to marry, prosecution must prove promise was false from inception and solely induced consent; mere breach later does not vitiate consent. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 37 , 38 )
5. Charge-sheet and entire criminal proceedings quashed for absence of criminal liability; application allowed. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 )
6. What is the legal distinction between a false promise to marry and a mere breach of promise in rape allegations?
A false promise to marry must be made with no intention of fulfillment at the inception, solely to obtain consent. A subsequent breach due to later circumstances does not vitiate consent under Section 90 IPC. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 38 )
7. When does a consensual physical relationship become non-consensual due to a promise of marriage?
Only when the promise is false and has immediate relevance to the woman's decision, and she consents solely because of that promise. If relationship persists over time without insistence on marriage, consent is not vitiated. (Para 24 , 25 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 )
8. What evidence is required to establish that a promise to marry was false from the beginning?
Adequate evidence must show that at the initial stage, the accused had no intention of marrying the victim. Mere failure to marry later, without proof of initial dishonest intent, is insufficient. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
9. Does the absence of obscene photographs or videos affect a blackmail allegation in a rape case?
Yes, failure to produce such material or for the investigating officer to find any in the case diary undermines the allegation of blackmail based on them. (Para 12 , 42 )
10. What is the effect of the victim's knowledge of the accused's existing marriage on the false promise claim?
If the victim was aware of the existing marriage and still continued the relationship with knowledge that divorce was pending, the consent is not vitiated by misconception of fact. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 )
JUDGMENT :
Madan Pal Singh, J.
1. Heard Mr. I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ayush Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A.for the State.
2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet dated 18th July, 2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 11358 of 2020 (State Vs. Amit Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 02 of 2020, under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code and also under Section 67 (A) of I.T. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Varanasi, pending in the Court of 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report (FIR) has been instituted on 8th January, 2020 lodged by the prosecutrix/complainant/opposite party no.2 against the applicant, based on a comprehensive written complaint addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, by the victim, Kumari Mamata Sinsinwar alias Jiya. The prosecutrix/complainant, a native resident of Kosi Kalan, District Mathura, was temporarily residing in Faridabad, Haryana, to pursue coaching for competitive examinations. The accused-applicant explicitly named in the complaint is Amit Kumar, an Inspector in the Uttar Pradesh Police (P.N. No. 012290521), who was at the material time deployed within the Crime Branch at Varanasi. The genesis of the interaction dates back to the year 2013, when the accused-applicant was posted as the Station House Officer (SHO) at Kosi Kalan, Mathura, and established a connection with the victim's family under the pretext of investigating a local dispute. The factual matrix reveals a case of deliberate matrimonial fraud and systemic deception. In August 2019, following a casual matrimonial inquiry initiated by the victim's mother, the accused proposed marriage to the victim. The accused-applicant intentionally concealed his pre-existing marriage, falsely projected himself as an eligible bachelor, and induced the family's consent by boasting of vast properties in Meerut alongside immense wealth accumulated through corrupt means during his police service. In September 2019, the accused-applicant enticed the victim to travel to Varanasi under the pretext of mutual introductions, securing accommodation in Room No. 3002 at Hotel City Inn. It is alleged that the accused-applicant spiked the victim's beverage with an intoxicant, inducing a state of deep sedation, during which he subjected her to non-consensual sexual intercourse and covertly recorded compromising photographs and videos. The accused- applicant subsequently weaponised this digital media, subjecting the victim to continuous extortion and blackmail, thereby compelling her into repeated physical violation under the threat of public exposure. Arising out of the forced relationship, the victim conceived a pregnancy. On 22nd September, 2019, the accused-applicant escorted her to a diagnostic centre in Lahurabir, where he falsely recorded her identity in the register as his wife, "Mamata wife of Amit Kumar," for the purpose of an ultrasound examination. Upon medical confirmation of the pregnancy, the accused subjected the victim to severe physical violence, held her captive inside the hotel room for multiple days, and forcibly administered medication to cause an unauthorized, non-consensual termination of the pregnancy.
4. The criminal enterprise unraveled when the victim visited the accused’s family residence in Meerut and discovered through family photographs and relatives that he was already lawfully married. Upon being confronted with the truth, the accused actively abused his official status as a Police Inspector. He unauthorizedly extracted the call detail records (CDR) of the victim and her mother, placed their phone numbers under illegal electronic surveillance, contacted their relatives to defame the vic
