From Consensual Relationship to Rape Case: Allahabad High Court Flags “Growing Trend” of Misuse of Criminal Law

Observing that courts are witnessing a “growing trend” of consensual relationships turning sour being converted into criminal prosecutions for rape, the Allahabad High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a Gorakhpur man accused of rape on the false promise of marriage. Court said misuse of criminal law in such cases was a matter of “profound concern” and warned against trivialising the offence of rape.

Court held that in the case at hand “consensual relationships going on for a prolonged period, upon turning sour, had been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence" and continuation of such prosecution would have amounted to “gross misuse of criminal jurisdiction".

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh passed the order while allowing an application filed by Sanjay @ Sanjay Kashyap under Section 528 BNSS (previously Section 482 in CrPC) seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, cognizance order and entire proceedings in a case registered under Sections 376, 323, 342 and 506 of the IPC [corresponding to Sections 64, 115(2), 127 (2) and 351 (2)/(3) of the BNS respectively] at Pipraich police station in Gorakhpur.

Misuse of rape law in failed relationships

The high court said every failed promise of marriage cannot be treated as rape unless it is shown that the accused never intended to marry the woman from the inception of the relationship.

Court extensively referred to Supreme Court judgments, including Samadhan Versus State of Maharashtra and Another (2025), Prashant Versus State of NCT of Delhi (2025), Mahesh Damu Khare Versus State of Maharashtra and Another (2024), Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Versus State of Maharashtra And Another (2019), and Rajnish Singh @ Soni Vs. State of U.P. And Another (2025), dealing with consensual relationships and allegations of rape on false promise of marriage.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s observations in Samadhan, the high court noted that courts have repeatedly taken note of the “disquieting tendency” where failed or broken relationships are given “the colour of criminality". The Supreme Court had cautioned that converting every failed relationship into a rape prosecution “not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice”.

The high court observed that the offence of rape must be invoked only in cases involving genuine sexual violence, coercion or absence of free consent.

Allegations against the accused

According to the FIR lodged on March 30, 2024, the complainant alleged that she met the accused at a marriage ceremony about a year earlier. The accused allegedly gifted her a mobile phone and later promised marriage before her family members.

The woman claimed that they developed intimacy after the promise of marriage and that the accused later began avoiding the issue of marriage before ultimately refusing to marry her. She further alleged that she was assaulted when she visited his house on March 26, 2024.

However, court noted that the FIR did not mention the specific date, time or place where the alleged rape first took place and contained only “bald allegations.”

Court also recorded that the complainant was a major, aged about 20 years, and educated up to Class 9. Her medical examination showed no external injuries.

In her statement under Section 164 of CrPC (corresponding to Section 183 of the BNSS), the woman stated that she had been in a relationship with the accused for one year and also expressed her desire to marry him.

Why did the High Court quash the proceedings?

The high court found that there was no allegation from the complainant that the accused never intended to marry her from the very beginning. It held that the relationship between the parties appeared consensual and continued over a substantial period.

Court observed that the FIR appeared to have been lodged after the relationship deteriorated and to pressure the accused into marriage.

It further noted inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements and observed that allegations regarding physical assault and wrongful confinement were unsupported by material particulars.

Holding that the case fell within the categories laid down in the Supreme Court’s State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal (1992) judgment governing quashing of criminal proceedings, court quashed the entire proceedings, including the charge-sheet dated June 9, 2024 and the cognisance order dated February 8, 2025.

Case Title: Sanjay @ Sanjay Kashyap vs State of U.P. and Another

Judgment Date: May 20, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh