Can Consent Become Rape After Relationship Fails? Allahabad High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Man
Allahabad High Court observed long-term consensual relationship between adults cannot amount to rape absent proof that the marriage promise was false from the outset.
Allahabad High Court quashed a rape case, finding the relationship was consensual.
The Allahabad High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of raping a woman on the false promise of marriage, holding that the material on record indicated a long-term consensual relationship between two adults and not a case of rape.
Allowing a petition filed by Sanjay Saroj alias Sanjay Kumar, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh set aside the chargesheet, cognizance order and all proceedings arising out of a 2019 FIR registered in Prayagraj under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC [corresponding to Sections 64, 115(2), 352 and 351 (2), 351 (3) of the BNS, respectively).
Court observed that the prosecutrix and the accused had remained in a relationship for nearly five years and that the case appeared to be "a clear case of a love relationship turned sour."
Was the relationship based on a false promise of marriage?
Court answered this question in the negative.
According to the FIR, the woman came to Prayagraj in 2014 to prepare for competitive examinations. She alleged that the accused, a distant relative, helped her secure admission and thereafter established physical relations with her on the assurance that he would marry her. She further alleged that whenever she pressed him to fulfil that promise, he assaulted and threatened her.
However, court found that the FIR was lodged only in August 2019, despite the allegation that the first act of sexual intercourse had occurred in 2014. It noted that no complaint had been lodged during the intervening five years.
Justice Singh observed that the prosecutrix was about 29 years old at the time of filing the FIR and was neither immature nor incapable of understanding the consequences of her actions. Court held that she was "mature and intelligent enough" to comprehend the nature of the relationship and the consequences of consensual intimacy.
"It is not the case where the victim was of an immature age, who could not foresee her welfare and take right decisions. She was mature and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of the moral and immoral acts for which she consented during subsistence of her relations," court observed.
Court also noted that the FIR did not specify the date, time or place where the alleged first act of rape took place.
What weighed with the court?
A significant factor was the subsequent marriage between the parties.
The accused contended that after registration of the FIR, the parties got married on August 27, 2019 in an Arya Samaj ceremony in the presence of family members. The prosecutrix did not deny that the marriage had taken place, though she claimed it was a sham.
The high court found that the facts did not support the allegation that the accused had never intended to marry the prosecutrix from the inception of the relationship.
Relying on a series of recent Supreme Court decisions, court reiterated the distinction between a false promise to marry and a mere breach of promise. It observed that criminal liability for rape arises only where it is shown that the promise of marriage was false from the very beginning and was made solely to obtain consent for sexual relations.
In the present case, court found no such material.
What did the court say about criminalising failed relationships?
Justice Singh referred to recent Supreme Court ruling in Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025) cautioning against converting failed consensual relationships into criminal prosecutions for rape.
Court observed that the prosecutrix and the accused remained in a close relationship for five years, maintained physical relations during that period and that the prosecutrix remained silent throughout until the relationship deteriorated.
"The only logical inference that emerges is that the victim, on her own volition, visited and met the applicant-accused on each occasion," Court said.
Holding that the essential ingredients of the offence of rape were absent and that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the high court quashed the chargesheet, summoning order and entire criminal proceedings against the accused.
Case Title: Sanjay Saroj @ Sanjay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Judgment Date: June 18, 2026
Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh