Allahabad HC quashes rape case, citing affectionate photos and the woman’s conduct to find the relationship consensual

The complainant alleged that the applicant, a police inspector, concealed his existing marriage, induced her to travel to Varanasi on a promise of marriage, drugged and sexually assaulted her, secretly recorded obscene images, and later used them to coerce further sexual relations.

She also alleged forced termination of her pregnancy, threats and blackmail.

The applicant denied the allegations and contended that the relationship was consensual, relying on photographs and WhatsApp chats which, he argued, showed that the complainant knew of his marriage and was willing to wait for his divorce.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act; cognizance was taken and the applicant was summoned.

He sought quashing of the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings.

Whether the allegations and material on record disclosed rape on the basis of a false promise of marriage, or instead indicated a consensual relationship

Whether the charge-sheet and resulting criminal proceedings should be quashed as an abuse of the process of court

The Court applied Sections 375 and 90 IPC, reasoning that consent may be vitiated by a misconception of fact where a promise to marry was false from the outset, made in bad faith to induce sexual relations, and had a direct bearing on the complainant’s decision to consent.

It relied on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 4010, and Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 2071, for the distinction between a dishonest, false promise and a subsequent failure to fulfil a genuine promise; the dishonest intention must exist at inception.

It also relied on Abbas Ahmed Choudhury v. State of Assam, (2010) 12 SCC 115, for the principle that a sexual-assault case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that a complainant’s statement is not automatically to be treated as conclusively true.

and cited Mahesh Damu Khare, Nitin B. Nikhare and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani on consent and false promises to marry.

The Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of court.

The Court considered the complainant’s statements alongside the WhatsApp chats and photographs on record.

It found that she knew the applicant was married and had stated in chats that she would wait until his divorce before marrying him; it also noted the continued contact between them, their visits and photographs, and the absence of obscene images or videos collected during the investigation.

On that basis, the Court concluded that the material did not establish that the applicant had made a promise to marry dishonestly from the outset or that the complainant’s consent to the relationship was obtained because of such a promise.

It treated the relationship as consensual and found no basis to continue the prosecution.

It quashed the charge-sheet dated 18 July 2020 and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 11358 of 2020, arising from Case Crime No. 02 of 2020, and allowed the application.