Long-standing Consensual Relationship Grounds Quash of Criminal Proceedings as Abuse of Process

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard a criminal appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 8549 of 2023 in which the appellant challenged the Allahabad High Court's order dated 24 April 2023 that had dismissed his Section 482 CrPC petition seeking quashment of FIR No. 269 of 2022 and the consequent proceedings under Sections 376, 384, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the High Court order, the FIR and all consequent proceedings against the appellant. The bench held that the material on record showed a prolonged consensual intimate relationship between the parties spanning about 16 years, which rendered the complainant's plea that her consent was vitiated by a false promise of marriage implausible. The Court observed that the investigation had itself deleted Section 313 IPC and that the chargesheet was only submitted against the appellant. The Court further held that permitting prosecution to continue in these circumstances "would be nothing short of a gross abuse of the process of law." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In conclusion, the Court held that unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage and without being influenced by any other consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent under misconception of fact. It was further held that even if it is assumed that a false promise of marriage was made to the complainant initially by the accused, the fact that the relationship continued for a period of nine long years would render the plea of the complainant that her consent for all these years was under misconception of the fact that the accused would marry her implausible."

Background: The complainant alleged that the appellant had established sexual relations with her from 2006 onwards, had on occasions drugged her, recorded obscene videos and used them to blackmail her, and had on one occasion caused miscarriage; she filed an FIR on 5 July 2022. The police investigation submitted a report under Section 173(2) CrPC on 29 September 2022 deleting Section 313 IPC and charging the appellant under Sections 376, 384, 323, 504 and 506 IPC; the Magistrate took cognizance on 10 November 2022. The appellant moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashment of Criminal Case No. 1246 of 2022, but the petition was dismissed on 24 April 2023. The appellant secured special leave and approached this Court.

At the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the relationship was voluntary and prolonged, that the complainant was a major and well-educated woman who had repeatedly met the appellant over many years and even described herself at times as his wife, and that the FIR was a result of a love-affair gone sour. The State and the complainant contended that the appellant had exploited the complainant by false promise of marriage, recorded intimate material and blackmailed her, and thus the criminal proceedings should continue.

The Court analysed the chronology, the long gap between the first alleged act and the FIR, and the repeated intimate encounters across many years. Applying precedents including Mahesh Damu Khare and the Court's guidance in Deepak Gulati and Prashant, the bench concluded that where a physical relationship continued for a prolonged period it would be difficult to hold that consent was vitiated throughout by a single false promise of marriage; the Court noted the necessity of showing that the relationship was "purely because of the promise of marriage" to attract criminal liability for rape on that basis. Concluding that the complainant's allegations were contradictory and ex facie implausible, the Court found continuation of prosecution to be an abuse of process and allowed the appeal. The appeal was allowed on 3 March 2025 and all pending applications stood disposed of; no interim directions were recorded.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 8549 of 2023 (Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025) Case Title: Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. and Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in judgment]