Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed the Appellant’s Petition for quashing the proceedings under Section 376 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court quashed a rape case holding that the prolonged period of 16 years during which the sexual relations continued unabatedly between the parties is sufficient to conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship. The Court allowed the Appeal challenging the Order passed by the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed the Appellant’s Petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the proceedings under Sections 376, 384, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC. The Complainant had alleged that the Appellant had engaged in a physical relationship with her for over a period of 16 years on false assurances of marriage. A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that “It is hard to believe that the complainant, being a highly qualified and well-placed major woman, kept on bending to the demands of the appellant for a period of nearly 16 years without raising any protest to any quarter that the appellant was exploiting her sexually under the pretext of a false promise of marriage. The prolonged period of 16 years during which the sexual relations continued unabatedly between the parties, is sufficient to conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship.”
Brief Facts The Complainant alleged that the Appellant had initially established physical relations with her in 2006 and continued the relationship by coercing her through threats and blackmail. She further alleged that the Appellant had recorded intimate videos and used them to manipulate and exploit her. The Complainant claimed that she refrained from reporting the matter earlier due to fear of social repercussions. She eventually lodged the complaint after the Appellant married another woman in 2022. Court’s Reasoning The Supreme Court held, “Testing the facts of the case at hand, on the touchstone of the above precedents, it is clear that the complainant, being a highly qualified major woman continued in a consensual intimate sexual relationship with the appellant over a period of 16 years. At some point in time, the relationship went sour leading to the filing of the FIR. No reasonable man would accept the version that the complainant allowed the accused to establish sexual relations with her over a period of 16 years purely under the misconception of marriage."
The Bench noted that on many occasions, the complainant even portrayed herself to be the wife of the Appellant, thereby dispelling the allegation that the intention of the Appellant was to cheat her right from the inception of the relationship. “We cannot remain oblivious to the fact that it was mostly the complainant who used to travel to meet the appellant at his place of posting. Therefore, we are convinced that the relationship between the complainant and appellant was consensual without the existence of any element of deceit or misconception,” it further noted. It was pointed out it was only when it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the Appellant was getting married to another woman, in an attempt to stop his marriage, she filed the aforesaid complaint wherein she also admitted that she was equally guilty as the Appellant and therefore, his marriage must be stopped.
Similarly, the Court also noted, “To the contrary, the complainant has herself set up a case that there was a secret marriage ceremony between her and the appellant. Therefore, in our opinion, even if the allegations made by the complainant are accepted on their face value, it is evident that the appellant and the complainant were in a long-standing live-in relationship during which they even performed marriage rituals albeit informal in nature.” The Court referred to its decision in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, wherein it was held, “In a situation where the woman knowingly maintains the physical relationship for a prolonged period, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of alleged promise made by the accused to marry her.”
“It is almost impossible to swallow the version of the complainant that for the entire period of 16 years, she unreservedly allowed the appellant to subject her to repeated acts of sexual intercourse under the impression that the accused would on someday act upon his promise of marriage,” the Bench remarked. Consequently, the Court held, “The order…by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is quashed and set aside and as a consequence, the impugned FIR No. 269 of 2022 and all the consequent proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the appellant are also quashed and set aside.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal. Cause Title: Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 308)
