AMIT KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

                                                Neutral Citation No. -
                                                2026:AHC:204780




             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
          APPLICATION U/S 482 CR.P.C. NO.- 15551 of 2020

Amit Kumar                                               …..Applicant (s)

                                 Versus

State of U.P. & Another                                     …..Opposite
                                                   party/Respondents(s)


Counsel for Applicant(s)          : Anshul Tiwari, Renu Singh, Vinod
                                    Prakash Srivastava (Senior Adv.)

Counsel for                       : G.A., Jai Prakash Singh
Respondent/Opposite party(s)


                                     Reserved on 21st September, 2026
                                     Delivered on 30th September, 2026

A.F.R.
Court No. - 81

                  HON’BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.


1.     Heard Mr. I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Ayush Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Jai Prakash
Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A.
for the State.

2.    The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been
filed by the applicant for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet dated
18th July, 2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.
11358 of 2020 (State Vs. Amit Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 02
of 2020, under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code and
also under Section 67 (A) of I.T. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana,
District-Varanasi, pending in the Court of 3 rd Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Varanasi.
                                   2
                                Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

3.    Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report (FIR)
has   been   instituted   on   8th   January,   2020     lodged    by    the
prosecutrix/complainant/opposite party no.2 against the applicant,
based on a comprehensive written complaint addressed to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, by the victim, Kumari Mamata
Sinsinwar alias Jiya. The prosecutrix/complainant, a native resident of
Kosi Kalan, District Mathura, was temporarily residing in Faridabad,
Haryana, to pursue coaching for competitive examinations. The
accused-applicant explicitly named in the complaint is Amit Kumar, an
Inspector in the Uttar Pradesh Police (P.N. No. 012290521), who was
at the material time deployed within the Crime Branch at Varanasi. The
genesis of the interaction dates back to the year 2013, when the
accused-applicant was posted as the Station House Officer (SHO) at
Kosi Kalan, Mathura, and established a connection with the victim's
family under the pretext of investigating a local dispute. The factual
matrix reveals a case of deliberate matrimonial fraud and systemic
deception. In August 2019, following a casual matrimonial inquiry
initiated by the victim's mother, the accused proposed marriage to the
victim. The accused-applicant intentionally concealed his pre-existing
marriage, falsely projected himself as an eligible bachelor, and induced
the family's consent by boasting of vast properties in Meerut alongside
immense wealth accumulated through corrupt means during his police
service. In September 2019, the accused-applicant enticed the victim
to travel to Varanasi under the pretext of mutual introductions,
securing accommodation in Room No. 3002 at Hotel City Inn. It is
alleged that the accused-applicant spiked the victim's beverage with an
intoxicant, inducing a state of deep sedation, during which he
subjected her to non-consensual sexual intercourse and covertly
recorded compromising photographs and videos. The accused-
applicant subsequently weaponised this digital media, subjecting the
victim to continuous extortion and blackmail, thereby compelling her
into repeated physical violation under the threat of public exposure.
Arising out of the forced relationship, the victim conceived a
pregnancy. On 22nd September, 2019, the accused-applicant escorted
                                   3
                                Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

her to a diagnostic centre in Lahurabir, where he falsely recorded her
identity in the register as his wife, "Mamata wife of Amit Kumar," for
the purpose of an ultrasound examination. Upon medical confirmation
of the pregnancy, the accused subjected the victim to severe physical
violence, held her captive inside the hotel room for multiple days, and
forcibly administered medication to cause an unauthorized, non-
consensual termination of the pregnancy.


4,       The criminal enterprise unraveled when the victim visited the
accused’s family residence in Meerut and discovered through family
photographs and relatives that he was already lawfully married. Upon
being confronted with the truth, the accused actively abused his official
status as a Police Inspector. He unauthorizedly extracted the call detail
records (CDR) of the victim and her mother, placed their phone
numbers under illegal electronic surveillance, contacted their relatives
to defame the victim, and issued lethal threats to her prospective
fiancé. The complaint culminates in assertions of an ongoing, severe
threat to life, with the accused repeatedly transmitting vulgar abuses,
death threats, and extortionate messages via unrecorded WhatsApp
calls.


5.       After lodging of the aforesaid first information report, the
investigation proceeded and upon completion of the same, the
Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the
applicant on which the cognizance has been taken and the applicant
has been summoned, hence the present application has been filed.


Brief Statement of the Prosecutrix Recorded Under Section 161 Cr.P.C.


6.       The prosecutrix/victim, Ms. Mamata Sinsinwar alias Jiya, aged
about 27 years, daughter of Late Shri Kheda Singh, resident of
Mathura, has stated on oath that she became acquainted with the
accused, Amit Kumar (who was then posted as a Police Inspector), in
the year 2013 at Kosi Kalan through her brother.
                                   4
                                Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

7.    Subsequently, upon a matrimonial inquiry initiated by the victim's
mother, the accused extended a direct marriage proposal, which was
accepted by her family. In August 2019, while the accused was posted
in Varanasi, he induced the victim to travel from Faridabad to Varanasi
under the pretext of formalizing their relationship, where he lodged her
in Room No. 3002 at Hotel City Inn. Therein, the accused deceitfully
administered a spiked chocolate milkshake to the victim, rendering her
unconscious, and thereafter subjected her to non-consensual sexual
intercourse. Upon regaining consciousness, when the victim protested,
the accused intimidated her by showcasing her highly objectionable
and nude photographs captured surreptitiously during her state of
insensibility, threatening to circulate them publicly while simultaneously
extending a false promise of marriage. Under this continuous coercion
and blackmail, the accused sexually exploited the victim during three
to four subsequent visits, as a result of which she conceived in
September 2019, an event medically confirmed via an ultrasound at
Varanasi. Upon being apprised of her pregnancy, the accused forcefully
administered abortifacient drugs to her at the hotel, which resulted in a
forced miscarriage. When the victim's marriage was later finalized with
another person for January 2020, the accused extended criminal
intimidation, threatened to kill her and her prospective groom, and
attempted to defame her by sending her photographs to her family
members. The victim eventually discovered through the accused's
family that he was already a married man with children, having actively
suppressed this material fact to perpetrate physical exploitation, and
that he continues to blackmail and threaten her under duress.


Statement of the Prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.


8.    In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the
prosecuptrix has reiterated the same version as stated in her earlier
statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

9.    Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the
prosecution, the accused-applicant visited the house of the prosecutrix
                                   5
                                Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

on any occasion whatsoever from year 2013 and the alleged incident
started from month September, 2019, but the first information report
was lodged by the prosecutrix on 8th January, 2020 at 2354 hours i.e.
after four months, for which no plausible explanation has been given
and the same appears that the said first information report is an
afterthought. He then submits that admittedly the prosecutrix came in
the contact of accused-applicant and she herself joined the company of
accused-applicant on her own sweet and free will. In the month of
September, 2019, the prosecutrix has stated herself in the first
information report as well as in her statements recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. that upon the applicant's request; asking
her to come to Varanasi to know about his job and status and also
while insisting upon her not to disclose the said visit to anyone, she
voluntarily traveled to Varanasi and stayed in a room of a hotel with
the applicant and she did not disclose the said visit of Varanasi to
anyone including her parents. It is not common in Indian society for an
educated young major girl/woman to travel alone to Varanasi, without
informing her parents or anyone else, at the behest of a stranger who
is not a relative, and to stay in a room with that stranger. She has also
stated herself that the applicant gave her a milkshake to drink, causing
her to lose consciousness, after which he established sexual relations
with her. Upon regaining consciousness, when the prosecutrix
opposed, the applicant promised to marry her and subsequently
established sexual relations with her twice that same night with her
consent. Later, after returning home, she discovered, she was
pregnant; the applicant then called her to Varanasi and, following an
ultrasound, had the pregnancy terminated. The prosecutrix remained
in the company of applicant for more than four months without any
protest or raising any alarm or making any complaint against the
applicant. The aforesaid statements reveal that she stayed in the
company of the applicant and on her own free will. From the
photographs of applicant and prosuectrix, which is at page 165 to 178
of the paper book and the same are also made part of the case diary,
                                    6
                                 Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

this fact that the prosecutrix was in company of the applicant on her
own free will, is also established.


10.    Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the
allegation made by the prosecutrix that on the false promise to marry
her, the applicant has established physical relationship with her as well
as the allegation that he has concealed his first marriage with
Meenakshi, who is also head constable in U.P. Police and that two sons
were born from the aforesaid wedlock, have no legs to stand. The
promise made by the applicant to the prosecutrix regarding marriage
was not false; when his relationship with his first wife, Meenakshi,
deteriorated and they began living separately, he came into contact
with the prosecutrix, developed feelings for her, and genuinely wished
to marry her. However, he was unable to do so because he had not yet
obtained a divorce from his first wife. Nevertheless, after meeting the
prosecutrix, he filed a divorce petition against his first wife, which
resulted in a decree of divorce on December 14, 2023 passed by the
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Meerut, but the
prosecutrix had already initiated this criminal case prior to that. The
applicant discovered that it was his first wife who, in collusion with the
prosecutrix, instigated her to file this case against him; this fact is
substantiated by some photographs of the applicant's first wife and the
prosecutrix, as well as WhatsApp chats exchanged between them,
which have been annexed starting from page nos. 20 of the rejoinder
affidavit.


11.    It is further submitted that as for the complainant's allegation
that the applicant did not disclose his prior marital status to the
prosecutrix before engaging in a relationship with her, this allegation is
entirely false; the WhatsApp chats exchanged between themselves
reveal that the prosecutrix acknowledged that they could not marry
until the applicant's divorce was finalized and stated that she was
willing to wait until then. The copies of the aforesaid whatsapp chats
exchanged between the applicant and the prosecutrix have been
                                     7
                                  Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

brought on record at page nos. 143 onwards of the paper book, the
relevant page is page no.143 of the paper book. The said chats have
also been made part of the case diary.


12.   It is then submitted that though the prosecution alleged that the
applicant used to blackmail the prosecutrix by taking her obscene
photographs and making videos, thereby compelling her to engage in
sexual relations; however, during the investigation, the Investigating
Officer was unable to collect any such photograph or video that could
be made part of the case diary.


13.   It is then submitted that the applicant is innocent, as the
allegations made in the first information report implicating the
applicant is false and fabricated. The first information report lodged by
opposite party no.2 is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has
been lodged only for exploiting the applicant by indulging his name in
a fake, false and frivolous case. The entire prosecution story as
unfolded in the first information report is absolutely a self-made story
projected by opposite party no.2. The relation between the applicant
and the informant is consensual in nature. There is no independent
witness, who came forward to support the prosecution version. No
incriminating evidence was produced before the Investigating Officer to
substantiate the claim that the victim was exploited by the appellant on
a false promise of marriage. Notably, neither the FIR nor the victim's
statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. disclose the
duration of the relationship between the applicant and the victim.

14.   Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in her
statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the
victim/prosecutrix/opposite party no.2 herself has admitted that she is
27 years old and was taking coaching classes for competitive
examination a major capable of understanding the consequences of
her actions. The contents of the FIR, read with the victim's statements
under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., clearly indicate that even assuming
the prosecution's allegations to be true, the relationship was
                                   8
                                Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

consensual. The omission to specify particulars of any promise of
marriage by the appellant gives rise to a presumption that no such
promise was made. Mere allegation of rape based on a pretext of
marriage is insufficient unless the prosecution proves that the victim
consented to the sexual relationship relying on such a promise. Absent
substantiation of this material fact, the allegation of rape cannot stand.
Not only case under Section 376 I.P.C. but also offence under Sections
323, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code and also under Section 67 (A) of
I.T. Act are not made out against the applicant. Thus, the entire
proceedings against the applicant are liable to be quashed.

15.   Learned A.G.A. for the State and the learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 have opposed the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellants by contending that the victim's
statement clearly shows that she was deceived by the applicant, who
promised marriage to satisfy his lust. She also stated that the applicant
has concealed his first marriage with Meenkshi from the prosecutrix
and established physical relation with her. The applicant established
physical relations with her repeatedly on the pretext of marriage and
by concealing his first marriage. The victim's statement is cogent, clear,
and consistent, establishing the guilt of the accused-applicant. From
the allegations made in the First Information Report cognizable offence
is made out against the applicants. The defence of the applicant
cannot be taken into consideration, at this stage. Therefore, the
applicant does not deserve any indulgence

16.   Apart from the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2
has stated that the applicant is a notorious offender having more than
24 criminal history including offences under Section 302 and 307 I.P.C.
as per the report of the D.C.R.B. district Meerut. Because of the
criminal mind set, as he was repeatedly beating and harassing her first
wife Meenakshi, who is head constable in U.P. Police. The applicant is a
philanderer as he has many sexual relationships with many girls and
women without intending to be emotionally involved, as is evident
from the photographs of the applicant and certain other girls/women in
objectionable condition, which are at page nos. 16 to 20 of the counter
                                  9
                               Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

affidavit. It is further contended that due to his criminal conduct, the
applicant could neither become a good husband and father to two
children nor a good human being or a good police officer. When the
first wife of the applicant, namely, Meenkshi demanded money for
maintenance of her two children born out from the wedlock of the
applicant and herself as she is living separately from the applicant
along with her children, he refused to do so and as on date, he has not
given any single penny to his two children due to which Meenakshi
filed a maintenance case against the applicant at behest of two
children. It is then submitted that due to bad conduct of the applicant
his services as Inspector of U.P. Police has been terminated. The
applicant filed a divorce petition against his first wife, which was
registered as Case No. 1686 of 2018 and decreed on December 14,
2023, precisely because he was having a good time and engaging in
dalliances with other women.

      On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2
urges that such a criminal and a person of bad conduct like the
applicant is not entitled to get any relief by this Court in exercise of
powers under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

17.   In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
above arguments advanced by the learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 is focused solely on the applicant's character. Regarding the
merits of the case like the issue as to whether the allegations of
blackmail, a false promise of marriage, and the concealment of his
marriage from which two children were born are established against
the applicant or not or rather, that the matter involves consensual
relations.

18. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and
learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on
the record.

19.   The issue before this Court which needs to be examined and
decided by this Court is as to whether the allegations of blackmail, a
                                     10
                                  Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

false promise of marriage, and the concealment of his marriage from
which two children were born are established against the applicant or
not or whether this is a case of consensual relationship between the
applicant and prosecutrix or not.

20.   There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and
in a case where there is promise of marriage, the Court must very
carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry
the victim, or had mal fide motives and had made a false promise to
this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls in the ambit of
cheating or deception. This principle has been reiterated in the latest
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani
Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947.



21. Before entering into the facts of this case, it would be proper to
examine the difference between false promise of marriage to induce a
woman to obtain her consent for physical relationship and breach of
promise to marry. Sexual relationship amounts to rape if it is obtained
without consent of women. What amounts to "consent" as mentioned
in Section 375 IPC is defined in Section 90 IPC.



22.   Section 90 of I.P.C. defines consent known to be given under
fear or misconception:-

      "90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception.- A
      consent is not such a consent as intended by any section of this
      Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury or
      under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act
      knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in
      consequence of such fear or misconception; or
      Consent of insane person.- if the consent is given by a person
      who, from unsoundness of mind or intoxication, is unable to
      understand the nature of the consequence of that to which he
      gives his consent; or
      Consent of child.- unless the contrary appears from the context, if
      the consent is given by a person who is under 12 years of age."


23.   Reading the definition of "consent" (Section 90 IPC) with the
definition of "rape" (Section 375), it becomes manifest consent of
                                    11
                                 Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

women is vitiated if she is convinced to engage in sexual relationship
with accused who induces her with false promise to marry.

24. The Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs The State Of
Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2019 S C 4010, while dealing with a
similar   situation,   enunciated    principles   of   law    by      following
observations:-

     "Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the
     maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to
     abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to
     engage in sexual relations, there is a "misconception of fact"
     that vitiates the woman's "consent". On the other hand, a
     breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To
     establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should
     have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of
     giving it…"
     The Supreme Court further observed:

     "To summarise the legal position that emerges from the
     above cases, the "consent" of a woman with respect to
     Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned
     deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether
     the "consent" was vitiated by a "misconception of fact"
     arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be
     established. The promise of marriage must have been a
     false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of
     being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise
     itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus
     to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act."
25. Hence, it becomes evident that a man can be held criminally liable
for having a sexual relationship on the basis of a false promise of
marriage only if the sexual relationship happened solely because of
that false promise. If the relationship occurred due to other reasons,
the offence is not made out. A woman may choose to enter into a
physical relationship for reasons other than a promise of marriage,
such as mutual affection or personal choice, even without insisting on
marriage.

26. Now, the next significant question arises as to when and how an
accused can be held guilty for inducing a woman to engage in sexual
relationships by making false promise of marriage?

27. It is trite that in criminal cases, where accused is alleged to have
committed rape, testimony of victim becomes significant and if her
                                      12
                                   Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

statement is of sterling quality, it does not even require corroboration.
However, converse is also true because law regarding appreciation of
evidence does not distinguish between different categories of
witnesses and no privilege has been extended to victim of rape. There
is no universal law to treat statement of victim as gospel truth. The
Supreme Court in Abbas Ahmed Choudhury v. State of Assam reported
in (2010) 12 SCC 115 held that a case of sexual assault has to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt as any other case and that there is
no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story
truthfully.

28. The proposition as discussed in preceding paragraph applies
equally in cases where the allegation against accused is of inducing the
victim to engage in sexual relationship by making false promise to
marry. In order to fasten an accused of such criminal liability, it is
necessary for prosecution to come up with adequate evidence to show
that at relevant time, i.e, at the initial stage itself, the accused had no
intention of keeping his promise to marry the victim. The Supreme
Court in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana", reported in AIR 2013 SC
2071, held as follows:

      "24. Hence, it is evident that there must be adequate evidence to
      show that at the relevant time i.e. at the initial stage itself, the
      accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to
      marry the victim. There may, of course, be circumstances, when a
      person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim
      owing to various unavoidable circumstances. The "failure to keep a
      promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to
      reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does
      not always amount to misconception of fact. In order to come within
      the meaning of the term "misconception of fact", the fact must have
      an immediate relevance". Section 90 IPC cannot be called into aid
      in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and fasten
      criminal liability on the other, unless the court is assured of the fact
      that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended
      to marry her."



29. Hence, it evident that before an accused can be held liable, it is
necessary that (a) the accused never intended to marry the victim
from the beginning. A mere failure to marry, due to later
circumstances, does not amount to deception. Section 90 IPC applies
                                   13
                                Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

only when dishonest intention existed at the outset and, (b) same has
to be proved by adequate evidence.

30. From the foregoing discussions, it is apparent that establishing
physical relationships with a woman by making false promise of
marriage is an offence which vitiates her consent and it attracts
offence under Section 376 IPC. Breach of promise is generally defined
as the failure of one party to fulfill a mutual agreement or commitment
to marry another and it is viewed as a civil wrong. In order to hold an
accused criminally liable for committing rape on pretext of false
promise of marriage, it is necessary that prosecution must establish
that accused right from the beginning cheated victim without any
intention to marry with an intent to satisfy his lust. Hence, the
essential ingredients of the offence are:

(a) the accused made a promise to marry the victim;

(b) the promise was false and not intended to be fulfilled;

(c) the promise was made with the intention of deceiving the victim
and inducing her to consent to a sexual relationship;

(d) the dishonest intention to deceive and cheat existed from the very
inception of the promise; and

(e) the victim's consent for the sexual relationship was obtained solely
on the basis of such false promise;

(f) for consent to be vitiated by a false promise, the promise must
have immediate relevance to the woman's decision to engage in
intercourse;

(g) there must be adequate evidence to show that promise made by
accused from its inception was made without any intention to fulfill.

31.    The absence of proof that the essential ingredient of a "promise
to marry" is specifically that the promise was made without any
intention of fulfilling it from the beginning, does not invalidate consent
of victim for sexual relations under Section 90 read with Section 375 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A consensual sexual relationship followed
                                   14
                                Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

by a subsequent refusal to marry does not render the accused liable
for rape. This position finds consistent support in the jurisprudence of
the Supreme Court, as laid down in Deepak Gulati (Supra) and Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar (Supra), wherein it has been emphatically held that
mere breach of promise to marry, in absence of initial dishonest intent,
cannot convert consensual physical relations into rape. Treating every
such refusal to marriage as vitiated consent would dilute the sanctity of
Section 375 IPC and overburden the criminal justice system with cases
arising from soured relationships rather than genuine sexual offences.

32.   These materials, even if assumed true, fail to establish the
essential ingredients: (a) no adequate evidence shows the promise, if
any, was false from inception with dishonest intent to deceive solely for
lust; (b) the relationship appears driven by mutual affection over four
months rather than immediate reliance on a false promise; and (c)
subsequent refusal. Mere failure to marry due to later circumstances
does not vitiate consent under Section 90 IPC, as held in Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar (supra) and Deepak Gulati (supra).

33.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India In the case of Mahesh
Damu Khare Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others reported in 2024
SCC OnLine SC 347 has opined that the fact that the complainant
continued to have a physical relationship for a long time without any
insistence on marriage would indicate the unlikelihood of any such
promise made by the appellant for marrying her and it rather indicates
that the relationship was a consensual one.

                                                      (Emphasis supplied)

34.   Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has opined that the
longer duration of the physical relationship between the partners
without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage
would be indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a
relationship based on false promise of marriage by the male partner
and thus, based on misconception of fact. Moreover, even if it is
assumed that a false promise of marriage was made to the
complainant initially by the appellant, even though no such cogent
                                    15
                                 Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

evidence has been brought on record before us to that effect, the fact
that the relationship continued for more than 7 years, would render
the plea of the complainant that her consent for all these years was
under misconception of fact that the Appellant would marry her
implausible. Consequently, the criminal liability attached to such false
promise would be diluted after such a long passage of time and in light
of the fact that no protest was registered by the complainant during
all those years. Such a prolonged continuation of physical relationship
without demurral or remonstration by the female partner, in effect
takes out the sting of criminal culpability and neutralises it.

                                                       (Emphasis supplied)

35.   Then the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has expressed its
opinion that it will be very difficult to assume that the complainant who
is otherwise a mature person with too grown up child, was unable to
discover the deceitful behaviour of the appellant who continued to
have sexual relationship with her for such a long period on the promise
of marriage. Any such mendacious act of the appellant would have
been exposed sooner without having to wait for nine years. The
inference one can draw under the circumstances is that there was no
such false promise made to the complainant by the appellant of
marriage by continuing to have physical relationship so as to bring this
act within the province of Section 376 IPC and therefore, there was no
vitiation of consent under misconception of fact. Further, it appears
that discontinuance of financial support to the complainant, rather than
the alleged resiling from the promise to marry by the appellant appears
to be the triggering point for making the allegation by the complainant
after a long consensual relationship for about nine years.

36.   On the basis of aforesaid opinion, the Hon’ble Surpeme Court of
India has viewed that if criminality is to be attached to such prolonged
physical relationship at a very belated stage, it can lead to serious
consequences. It will open the scope for imputing criminality to such
long term relationships after turning sour, as such an allegation can be
made even at a belated stage to drag a person in the juggernaut of
                                     16
                                  Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

stringent criminal process. There is always a danger of attributing
criminal intent to an otherwise disturbed civil relationship of which the
Court must also be mindful.

                                                          (Emphasis added)

37. Relying the judgment of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (Supra) and
Mahesh Damu Khare (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Nitin B. Nikhare Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Another in
Criminal Appeal No(S)…...of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1889 of
2024 decided on 21st January, 2025, in paragraph no. 6 has held that
mere fact that physical relations were established pursuant to a
promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case. In order for
the offence of rape to be made out, two conditions need to be satisfied
i.e. that the promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with
a view to obtain consent for sexual relations without having any
intention of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning, and that
the false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix
giving her consent for sexual relations.

38.   Referring and relying upon the another judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana reported in
2013 Cri LJ 2990, the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar
Kesharwani (Supra) has made following observations:

      “18. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided,
      obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason,
      accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance,
      the good and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction
      between rape and 11 consensual sex and in a case like this, the
      court must very carefully examine whether the accused had
      actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and
      had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as
      the latter falls within a ambit of cheating or deception. There is a
      distinction between the mere breach of a promise,and not fulfilling
      a false promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was
      made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the accuse;
      and whether the consent involved was given after wholly,
      understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence.
      There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual
      intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused,
      and not solely on account of mis-representation made to her by
      the accused, or where an accused on account of circumstances
      which he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his
      control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to
                                       17
                                    Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

      do so. Such cases must be treated differently. An accused can be
      convicted for rape only if the court reaches a conclusion that the
      intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had
      clandestine motives.

      21. Hence, it is evident that there must be adequate evidence to
      show that at the relevant time, i.e. at initial stage itself, the
      accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to
      marry the victim. There may, of course, be circumstances, when a
      person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim
      owing to various unavoidable circumstances. The “failure to keep a
      promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to
      reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does
      not always amount to misconception of fact. In order to come
      within the meaning of the term misconception of fact, the fact, the
      fact must have an immediate relevance.” Section 90, IPC cannot
      be called into aid in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in
      entirety, and fasten criminal liability on the other, unless the court is
      assured of the fact that from the very beginning, the accused had
      never really intended to marry her.”
                                                         (Emphasis supplied)


39.   In light of the aforesaid legal principles, a careful scrutiny of the
FIR and the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
reveals only bald allegations of exploitation on the pretext of marriage
without    disclosing    the    duration     of   the    relationship     or      any
contemporaneous promise. In the first information report as well as in
the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the
victim/prosecutrix has through out stated that in 2013, the applicant
visited the home of prosecutrix in connection with a case and
subsequently kept visiting on, one pretext or another; after the
prosecutrix’s mother once used the prosecutrix’s phone to call the
applicant, he began communicating with the prosecutrix and gave her
false assurances that he would marry her. In September, he invited the
prosecutrix to come to Varanasi, where he was posted as an Inspector
in Police Department, asking her to come and witness his status and
standing, while strictly instructing her not to disclose the said visit to
her family or anyone else. Trusting the applicant's word, the
complainant/prosecutrix went to Varanasi in September 2019, where
the applicant took her to the hotel room where he was staying and
persuaded her to stay there as well; relying on him, she stayed in the
said room. Later that night, the applicant gave her a milkshake, and
upon consuming it, she fell asleep; taking advantage of this, the
                                  18
                               Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

applicant engaged in sexual relations with her and recorded obscene
videos and photographs. When she woke up, he made a false promise
of marriage and engaged in sexual relations with her twice more that
night. Subsequently, he forced her into sexual relations multiple times
by threatening to make the videos and photographs viral, and when
she became pregnant, he had a sonography performed and caused the
termination of her pregnancy. The prosecutrix also alleges that the
applicant concealed from her the fact of his first marriage, as well as
the existence of his first wife namely, Meenkashi, who is a Head
Constable in the Police department and their two children.

40.   It emerges from the foregoing facts that the prosecutrix, who is
aged about 27 years, is an educated woman, had known the applicant
since 2013 and held a liking for him; consequently, when the applicant
proposed marriage and invited her to Varanasi, specifically asking her
not to disclose her visit to anyone, she traveled to Varanasi in
September 2019 without informing anyone and stayed in the same
room of hotel with him, though without engaging in any intimate
relationship. Subsequently, on that night, they engaged in sexual
relations three times and continued to do so thereafter, resulting in a
pregnancy; later, at the applicant's behest, she even underwent an
abortion in Varanasi. Under these circumstances, the sexual relations
between the prosecutrix and the applicant can be termed consensual
as is also evident from the photographs of applicant and prosuectrix,
which is at page 165 to 178 of the paper book as well as from the
Whatsapp chats exchanged between them, which are page nos. 148 to
163 of the paper book and the same are also made part of the case
diary inasmuch as in the said photographs she was very happy with
the applicant. Moreover, in several photographs, the prosecutrix is seen
embracing and showing affection towards the applicant; an Indian
woman would not embrace a stranger or a man other than her partner
in such a manner.     As such the fact that the prosecutrix was in
company of the applicant on her own free will, is also established.
Furthermore, none of the prosecution's evidence indicates that the
applicant ever refused to marry the complainant and also the
                                       19
                                    Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

prosecutrix being major and educated girl, has never resisted, objected
or made any complaint before any court of law during these period
Therefore, the allegation of prosecutrix that the applicant has
established physical relations with her on the pretext of false promise
to marry her, has no legs to stand.
41.    From the facts as referred to above, it is also cropped up that
the marriage relationship of the applicant with her first wife Meenkshi
was strained and incompatible, due to which he filed divorce petition
against      her   before   the   competent    court    of   law,   which   has
subsequently, been decreed in 2023 and because of the said reason he
always wanted to marry the prosecutrix. In the FIR and her statements
recorded under Sections 161 and 164, the prosecutrix has stated the
applicant took her to his native place at Meerut where mother of the
applicant assured her that the applicant would marry her. However, on
the instigation of his first wife, namely, Meenkashi, the prosecutrix has
filed the instant first information report against him. This fact is
substantiated by some photographs of the applicant's first wife and the
prosecutrix, as well as WhatsApp chats exchanged between them,
which have been annexed starting from page nos. 20 of the rejoinder
affidavit.


42.    So far as the allegation of blackmailing by the applicant to the
prosecutrix on the basis of obscene videos and photographs of her is
concerned, neither such obscene videos and photographs have been
produced on behalf of the prosecutrix before this Court nor the
Investigating Officer during course of investigation has collected the
same so that they may made part of the case diary.


43.    Qua the allegation made by the prosecutrix against the applicant
that he has concealed his first marital status about his first wife and
two children, this Court finds substance in the submission made by the
learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix was well within
her knowledge that the applicant has already married with Meenkshi
who is head constable in U.P. Police and that he has proceeded to
                                    20
                                 Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

divorce her. The aforesaid fact is also established from the two
Whatsapp chats exchanged between the applicant and the prosecutrix,
which are at page no. 147 of the paper book and the same is also
made part of the case diary. For ready reference, the said two chats
are extracted hereunder:
        “Bhawnao m bah kar koi galati nhi krni h……..M intjaar kr
        lungi divorce hone tak ka…...Ab m bhi yahi chahati hu
        divorce ke baad hi shaadi ho…….Or tabhi hum mile plzzz”
        “Vo sach m bahut ghayiya aurat jo jel bhijva sakti h Ritu didi
        ko likhva sakti h...Vo kishi bhi had tak gir skti h use moka
        dena hamari bebakufi hogi…..Divorce tk wait kart h oki.”
44.     A new fact has also been cropped up from the perusal of the
supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant on 7 th July,
2022 that the prosecutrix has already married with one Nitaram son of
Shyam Singh, resident of Village Kotwan, Police Station-Koshikala,
District-Mathura.    Some    photographs    of   wedding     ceremony      of
prosecutrix with Nitaram are also annexed as Annexure No. S.A.-2 to
the said supplementary affidavit. This fact has not been disclosed
before this Court during the course of hearing of the present criminal
application.
45. As this Court reaches the conclusion of this judgment, this Court
must determine whether the sexual relations established between the
applicant and the prosecutrix, which have not been denied by any of
them, were consensual or the result of factors such as force, coercion,
or compulsion; to this end, this Court sets out the following facts
below:
(I).    It is admitted by the prosecutrix that she was in contact with the
applicant from 2013 to 2020; during this period, she regularly
communicated with him over the phone and in person, and also
engaged in continuous WhatsApp chats with him.
(ii).   In September 2019, at the applicant's invitation, the prosecutrix
traveled alone by flight to Varanasi, without informing anyone,
including her parents and stayed for two to three days in the same
hotel room where the applicant was already residing; even after the
                                   21
                                Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020

alleged rape, she lodged no complaint against the applicant, neither in
Varanasi nor after returning her home and after that also she was in
regular touch with the applicant.
(iii). After coming from Varanasi to her house where the prosecutrix is
alleged to have been raped by the applicant, after some days, she
went to the applicant’s native place at Meerut where she met with his
mother, nephew, niece, Bhabhi and where also she did not make any
complaint against the applicant from his family members or any
authority.
(iv). The prosecutrix was well aware that the applicant was already
married, that his relationship with his first wife was strained, and that
he wished to divorce her; consequently, in the WhatsApp chat quoted
above and the same is at page no. 147 of the paper book, she stated
that she would wait to marry the applicant until he had obtained a
divorce from his first wife.
(v). From the Photographs of the applicant and the prosecutrix, which
have been brought on record at page nos. 165 to 178 of the paper
book as well as from the Whatsapp chats exchanged between them,
which are page nos. 148 to 163 of the paper book, it is cystal clear
that the prosecutrix was very happy with the applicant. Moreover, in
several photographs, the prosecutrix is seen embracing and showing
affection towards the applicant; an Indian woman would not embrace
a stranger or a man other than her partner in such a manner.
(vi) Perusal of the entire record reflects that theapplicant had never
refused or denied to marry the prosecutrix after his dirvorce with his
first wife. It is the prosecutrix, who in connivance of the first wife of
the applicant, namely, Meenakshi, has lodged the first information
report against the applicant in 2020 before the decree of divorce has
passed by the competent court of law in favour of applicant i.e. in
2023.
        From the aforesaid facts this Court has no room to doubt in
order to express its final opinion that the prosecutrix was in company
of the applicant on her own free will and the relationship established
between them was fully consensual in nature and nothing otherwise.
                                                                    22
                                                                 Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15551 of 2020



                            45.         In view of the aforesaid discussions and deliberations, this Court
                            finds that neither any case under Sections 376, 323 and 504 I.P.C. nor
                            any case under Section 67 (A) of the Information Technology
                            (Amendment) Act are made out against the applicant.


                            46. Hence, this Court is of view that allowing the criminal proceeding
                            against the appellant in the facts and circumstances to continue, where
                            no criminal liability can be attached, would amount to abuse of the
                            process of court. Therefore, applicant is entitled to the relief as claimed
                            by him for quashing the complaint/ FIR.

                            47. In view of the aforesaid, charge-sheet dated 18 th July, 2020 as well
                            as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 11358 of 2020 (State
                            Vs. Amit Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 02 of 2020, under
                            Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code and also under
                            Section 67 (A) of I.T. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-
                            Varanasi, pending in the Court of 3rd Additional Chief Judicial
                            Magistrate, Varanasi are quashed.

                            48. This criminal application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly,
                            allowed.




                                                                                      (Madan Pal Singh, J.)

                            Order Date:-30/09/2026
                            Sushil/-




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad