Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a long-term consensual adulterous relationship would not amount to rape within the meaning of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Court was hearing a plea filed by a man under Section 482, CrPC seeking to quash a criminal case registered under Sections 376 (rape) and 386 (extortion) of the IPC.

Court noted that the complainant, a married woman with two adult children, had willingly entered into a physical relationship with the accused out of love, lust, and infatuation and this relationship had lasted for 12-13 years.

Court emphasized that since the woman, fully aware of her marital status and the impossibility of marrying the accused, had initiated and maintained the relationship, therefore, the allegation that the accused had promised to marry her, contingent on her husband's death, was a lame excuse to level allegations of rape. 

Citing various judgments from the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court on the distinction between rape and consensual sex, the bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta clarified that a prolonged consensual physical relationship, absent any element of deceit from the outset, does not constitute rape.

In the case at hand, the court observed that the complainant held a dominant position over the accused, who was significantly younger and financially dependent on her family and the woman had even helped him establish his business to maintain their relationship.

Court further noted that there were no allegations of force or deception by the accused at the beginning of their relationship. Instead, it was the woman who had enticed and pressured the man into the affair.

Court said that even if the accused had promised to marry after the death of the husband of the woman, it was a no promise in law,

"...due to the aforesaid dependency the prosecutrix had allured and forced the applicant to entered into such a relationship, which was with the clear and categorical consent and will of the prosecutrix, therefore, by no stretch of imagination such relationship would amount to rape within the meaning of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, " the court held. 

The woman's husband had been suffering from diabetes for the past 15 years, leaving him immobile and unresponsive to various treatments. According to the woman, during this period, her husband introduced her to the accused, describing him as a trustworthy person who would take care of her after his death.

Over time, the accused allegedly grew close to the woman and assured her that her husband had only a few days left to live, promising that they would marry once he passed away. Trusting his words, the woman claimed she entered into a physical relationship with him, believing in his future commitment to marry her.

After her husband's death, the relationship between the woman and the accused continued. However, despite her repeated requests for marriage, the accused began to delay the matter, the woman alleged. Eventually, the woman discovered that he was engaged to another woman.

When she confronted him, the accused allegedly took her to a secluded spot, threatened her with a pistol, raped her, and recorded the assault. He also informed her that he would not marry her.

Following these events, the woman filed a complaint with the police, accusing the accused of continuously raping her under the false promise of marriage.

The high court noted that neither the alleged video clip nor the country-made pistol was recovered from the accused during the investigation.

Considering the facts of the case, court concluded that no offence of rape was made out against the accused.

It opined that the First Information Report (FIR) appeared to have been filed by the woman out of frustration over the accused’s engagement to another woman, as she was unwilling to end the relationship with him.

As a result, court allowed the accused’s application and quashed the case lodged against him.

Case Title: Shrey Gupta Vs. State Of U.P. And Anr