Rajnish Singh v. State of UP
“Prolonged Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Converted Into Rape on False Promise of Marriage”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR and all criminal proceedings under Sections 376, 384, 323, 504 and 506 IPC against the appellant, holding that a prolonged 16-year consensual sexual relationship between an educated, employed woman and the appellant could not be converted into rape merely because the appellant subsequently married another woman. The Court drew a clear distinction between a false promise of marriage (where the accused never intended to marry) and a breach of promise (where the accused intended to marry but circumstances changed), holding that only the former vitiates consent under Section 90 IPC.
The Bottom Line
A long-standing consensual sexual relationship spanning many years cannot be retroactively converted into rape merely because one partner later refuses to marry or marries someone else. For a false promise of marriage to constitute rape, the prosecution must prove that the accused had no intention to marry from the very beginning. Educated, adult individuals who voluntarily maintain intimate relationships for years cannot later claim their consent was vitiated by a promise of marriage.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Alleged First Sexual Assault
The complainant alleged that the appellant first committed sexual assault upon her at her own house where her parents were present, by gagging her mouth.
Alleged First Sexual Assault
The complainant alleged that the appellant first committed sexual assault upon her at her own house where her parents were present, by gagging her mouth.
Complainant Appointed as Lecturer
The complainant was appointed as Lecturer at AFS Bhemora College (Kendriya Vidyalaya), Lucknow.
Complainant Appointed as Lecturer
The complainant was appointed as Lecturer at AFS Bhemora College (Kendriya Vidyalaya), Lucknow.
Appellant Joins SBI; Alleged Drugging Incident
The appellant obtained employment as Clerk at State Bank of India, Dhani branch, Maharajganj. He allegedly called the complainant and spiked her drink to establish sexual relations.
Appellant Joins SBI; Alleged Drugging Incident
The appellant obtained employment as Clerk at State Bank of India, Dhani branch, Maharajganj. He allegedly called the complainant and spiked her drink to establish sexual relations.
Alleged Extortion of Cheque
The appellant allegedly took a cheque of Rs. 94,000 from the complainant and never returned it.
Alleged Extortion of Cheque
The appellant allegedly took a cheque of Rs. 94,000 from the complainant and never returned it.
Alleged Threat at Pratapgarh
The appellant allegedly called the complainant to Pratapgarh and threatened to make intimate videos viral if she did not comply.
Alleged Threat at Pratapgarh
The appellant allegedly called the complainant to Pratapgarh and threatened to make intimate videos viral if she did not comply.
Complaint at One Stop Centre
The complainant filed a complaint at the One Stop Centre, Lalitpur. The complaint was closed based on an agreement between the parties to marry.
Complaint at One Stop Centre
The complainant filed a complaint at the One Stop Centre, Lalitpur. The complaint was closed based on an agreement between the parties to marry.
Appellant Marries Another Woman
The appellant married Namrata, breaking the understanding with the complainant and triggering the criminal complaint.
Appellant Marries Another Woman
The appellant married Namrata, breaking the understanding with the complainant and triggering the criminal complaint.
FIR Registered
FIR No. 269 of 2022 was registered at Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah, under Sections 313, 376, 384, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
FIR Registered
FIR No. 269 of 2022 was registered at Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah, under Sections 313, 376, 384, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
Chargesheet Filed
Police filed the chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC, omitting Section 313 IPC (causing miscarriage) and naming only the appellant as accused.
Chargesheet Filed
Police filed the chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC, omitting Section 313 IPC (causing miscarriage) and naming only the appellant as accused.
Magistrate Takes Cognizance
The Magistrate took cognizance in Criminal Case No. 1246 of 2022 and issued summons to the appellant.
Magistrate Takes Cognizance
The Magistrate took cognizance in Criminal Case No. 1246 of 2022 and issued summons to the appellant.
High Court Dismisses Section 482 Petition
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appellant's petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
High Court Dismisses Section 482 Petition
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appellant's petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Supreme Court Quashes FIR and All Proceedings
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, quashed the FIR and all consequent proceedings, holding that the case was a clear instance of a love affair gone sour and not rape.
Supreme Court Quashes FIR and All Proceedings
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, quashed the FIR and all consequent proceedings, holding that the case was a clear instance of a love affair gone sour and not rape.
The Story
The complainant (Ms. A), a well-educated woman holding M.Com and B.Ed degrees and employed as a Lecturer at AFS Bhemora College, Lucknow since 2008, alleged that the appellant Rajnish Singh @ Soni first committed sexual assault upon her in 2006 at her own house where her parents were also present, by gagging her mouth. She alleged that thereafter, he promised to marry her and continued to engage in sexual relations with her for approximately 16 years.
In 2009, when the appellant obtained employment as a Clerk at the State Bank of India in Maharajganj district, the complainant alleged he called her to Maharajganj, spiked her drink with an intoxicant and ENO, and established sexual relations with her. She further alleged that during the course of their relationship, the appellant recorded obscene videos and used them to blackmail her. When she became pregnant, the appellant allegedly forced her to consume medication to cause a miscarriage. In 2011, the appellant allegedly took a cheque of Rs. 94,000 from her and never returned it. In 2015, the appellant allegedly called her to Pratapgarh and threatened to make the videos viral if she did not comply with his demands.
Around 2020-2021, the complainant learned that the appellant was in a relationship with another woman named Namrata. On 23 March 2022, the complainant approached the One Stop Centre in Lalitpur and filed a complaint. This complaint was reportedly closed based on an agreement between the parties to marry. However, on 22 April 2022, the appellant married Namrata instead. On 1 May 2022, the appellant along with his brother Ashwani and father Rajbahadur allegedly barged into the complainant's house and threatened to kill her.
FIR No. 269 of 2022 was registered on 5 July 2022 at Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah, under Sections 313, 376, 384, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed on 29 September 2022, omitting Section 313 (causing miscarriage) due to insufficient evidence and naming only the appellant as accused. The Magistrate took cognizance on 10 November 2022 and issued summons. The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, which was dismissed on 24 April 2023. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
The entire FIR and chargesheet are false and fabricated
The appellant contended that the complainant was a well-qualified major woman with M.Com and B.Ed degrees, employed as a Lecturer, who was fully conscious of the consequences of her actions. The 16-year intimate relationship was entirely consensual and not the product of any force, threat, duress, or coercion.
The prolonged 16-year relationship negates any claim of rape or coercion
The defence argued that it was inconceivable that an educated, independent woman would continue to submit to sexual relations for 16 years under force or coercion. The duration of the voluntary relationship itself demonstrated free consent. The appellant and complainant even performed informal marriage rituals, showing mutual commitment.
Complainant's own conduct demonstrates a consensual live-in relationship
The appellant pointed to the complainant's application dated 25 May 2022 where she identified herself as the appellant's wife and complained that her "husband" refused to keep her. At the One Stop Centre, she described her marital status in relation to the appellant. These admissions contradicted the rape narrative entirely.
The complaint was motivated by the appellant's marriage to another woman
The appellant argued that the FIR was registered only after he married Namrata on 22 April 2022, which proved the complaint was driven by personal vendetta over a failed relationship, not by any genuine crime. The proceedings constituted a gross abuse of the process of law.
Respondent
State of Haryana
The appellant won complainant's confidence through false marriage promises
The State and the complainant argued that the appellant had systematically won the complainant's trust by repeatedly promising to marry her and then sexually exploited her for 15 years knowing he never intended to fulfill his promise.
The appellant used blackmail and threats to coerce the complainant
The prosecution contended that the appellant recorded obscene videos of the complainant during their intimate relations and used these to blackmail her into continuing the sexual relationship. He threatened to make the videos viral if she did not comply, thereby vitiating her consent through coercion.
The appellant forced the complainant to undergo a miscarriage
The State argued that when the complainant became pregnant, the appellant forced her to consume medication to cause a miscarriage, demonstrating his exploitative and coercive control over her. However, the investigating officer dropped Section 313 IPC from the chargesheet due to insufficient evidence.
The High Court correctly rejected the quashing petition and proceedings should continue
The respondents argued that the Allahabad High Court had rightly dismissed the Section 482 CrPC petition and that the allegations were serious enough to warrant a full trial where the complainant could present her evidence. After 15 years of sexual assault, the appellant had ditched the complainant for another woman.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court conducted a thorough examination of the facts and the complainant's allegations, finding them inherently implausible and self-contradictory. The Court first questioned the credibility of the alleged first incident in 2006, noting it was difficult to believe that a sexual assault occurred in the complainant's own house where her parents were present without them noticing. The Court then analyzed the 16-year gap between the alleged first assault and the FIR, finding the prolonged silence of an educated, employed woman inexplicable if she was genuinely being exploited. The Court found the drugging allegation from 2009 illogical since the relationship had already been ongoing for three years by then. Most significantly, the Court emphasized that the complainant had on multiple occasions represented herself as the appellant's wife, including in a formal application to the police, which entirely contradicted the rape narrative. Applying the principles from Deepak Gulati and Mahesh Damu Khare, the Court held that the relationship was a clear case of a love affair or live-in relationship gone sour, where the criminal complaint was triggered solely by the appellant's marriage to another woman.
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.
Central holding that the duration of a voluntary sexual relationship is a key indicator of genuine consent and negates claims of force or deception.
It is difficult to swallow that the 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.
The Court applied a reasonableness test to the initial allegation of rape, finding it inherently implausible given the circumstances.
It does not stand to reason that when the intimate relations were continuing between the parties without any hitch for more than three years, then why would the appellant be impelled to take the trouble of spiking the drink of the complainant in order to establish sexual relations with her.
The Court used logical reasoning to dismantle the drugging allegation, finding it contradictory to an already ongoing consensual relationship.
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.
The Court considered the complainant's education, employment, and independence as factors demonstrating her agency and ability to seek help if genuinely exploited.
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.
Even accepting the complainant's version at face value, the Court found the relationship to be a live-in relationship, not one of exploitation.
The complainant's allegations seem to be a well-orchestrated story and nothing beyond that.
A pointed observation reflecting the Court's assessment that the criminal complaint was fabricated to weaponize the legal process after a relationship breakdown.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
Complete quashing of the FIR and all criminal proceedings. The appellant was freed from the criminal prosecution that had been initiated under serious charges including rape, extortion, hurt, insult, and criminal intimidation, with the Court declaring the entire case to be a fabricated complaint arising from a consensual relationship gone sour.
Directions Issued
- Order dated 24 April 2023 of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Section 482 petition is quashed and set aside
- FIR No. 269 of 2022, Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah is quashed
- All proceedings arising from and consequent to the said FIR, including Criminal Case No. 1246 of 2022, are quashed
- The case was declared to be a clear case of a love affair/live-in relationship gone sour, not constituting the offence of rape
Key Legal Principles Established
A prolonged consensual sexual relationship spanning many years cannot be converted into rape merely because one partner later refuses to marry or marries someone else.
For a false promise of marriage to constitute rape, the accused must have had mala fide intentions from the inception, with no genuine intention to marry at any point.
There is a clear distinction between a "false promise of marriage" (never intending to marry) and a "breach of promise of marriage" (genuinely intending but failing to marry). Only the former vitiates consent.
The physical relationship must be directly traceable to the false promise of marriage and must not be qualified by other circumstances such as love, passion, or mutual association.
An educated, independent, and employed adult who voluntarily maintains an intimate relationship for years cannot later claim continuous vitiation of consent under misconception of fact.
Where the complainant has represented herself as the wife of the accused on multiple occasions, this conduct contradicts allegations of rape and supports the inference of a consensual relationship.
Courts should exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings that amount to criminal weaponization of personal relationships, constituting a gross abuse of the process of law.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If you are in a long-term consensual relationship, the other person cannot file a rape case against you simply because you later decide not to marry or marry someone else.
- However, if you promise marriage with no genuine intention of fulfilling it and use that promise to obtain sexual consent, that can still constitute rape under Indian law.
- An educated adult who voluntarily maintains an intimate relationship for many years will find it very difficult to later claim that their consent was obtained through deception.
- If you identify yourself as someone's spouse in official applications or complaints, this can be used as evidence that the relationship was consensual.
- Filing a false rape case to take revenge for a failed relationship can be quashed by courts as abuse of the legal process.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Statutory Provisions
Section 376
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever commits rape shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Relevance: The primary charge against the appellant. The Court examined whether the 16-year consensual relationship could constitute rape on the ground of a false promise of marriage and held that it could not.
Section 90
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception.”
Relevance: The key provision on vitiating consent through misconception of fact. The Court analyzed whether the complainant's consent was vitiated by a misconception about the appellant's intention to marry, and concluded it was not given the 16-year voluntary relationship.
Section 384
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
Relevance: The complainant alleged that the appellant took Rs. 94,000 by cheque and never returned it. This charge was part of the quashed FIR.
Section 323
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
Relevance: Charged along with other offences in the FIR. Quashed along with all other proceedings.
Section 504
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
Relevance: Part of the FIR charges relating to alleged threats and insults by the appellant. Quashed with all other proceedings.
Section 506
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
Relevance: The complainant alleged that the appellant along with his relatives barged into her house and threatened to kill her. This charge was part of the quashed FIR.
Section 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section without the consent of the woman, whether the woman is quick with child or not, shall be punished with imprisonment of life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Relevance: Originally included in the FIR (causing miscarriage), but the investigating officer dropped this charge from the chargesheet due to insufficient reliable evidence.
Section 482
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
Relevance: The provision under which the appellant first sought quashing before the High Court (dismissed) and the legal basis on which the Supreme Court ultimately quashed the FIR and all proceedings as a gross abuse of process.
Section 173(2)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
“As soon as the investigation is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government.”
Relevance: The provision under which the chargesheet was filed on 29 September 2022, omitting the miscarriage charge and naming only the appellant.
Related Cases & Precedents
Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana
followed(2013) 7 SCC 675
Landmark judgment establishing the distinction between "false promise of marriage" and "breach of promise of marriage." Held that only a false promise with mala fide intention from inception can vitiate consent and constitute rape. Failure to keep a promise about a future uncertain date does not always amount to misconception of fact.
Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra
followed2024 SCC OnLine SC 3471
Established that the physical relationship must be directly traceable to the false promise of marriage and must not be qualified by other circumstances or considerations. Held that a prolonged relationship of nine years made the complainant's plea of continuous misconception implausible.
Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi)
followed2024 SCC OnLine SC 3375
Held that it is inconceivable that a complainant would continue to meet the accused or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship in the absence of voluntary consent.
Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka
followed(2019) 18 SCC 204
Supreme Court quashed charges in an 8-year relationship where parties lived as man and wife, holding it difficult to characterize sexual intercourse as rape in a long-standing relationship with mutual consent.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena
(2015) 6 SCC 353
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied - The Call for Swift Maintenance Orders
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.