RAJNISH SINGH @ SONIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

                 [2025] 3 S.C.R. 303 : 2025 INSC 308

                        Rajnish Singh @ Soni
                                   v.
                       State of U.P. and Another
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 2025)
                               03 March 2025
              [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to the liability of the appellant to be prosecuted
       for committing rape upon the complainant by giving her a false
       promise of marriage; and the correctness of the order passed by
       the High Court dismissing the petition seeking the quashing of
       the criminal proceedings arising out of the chargesheet u/ss.376,
       384, 323, 504, 506 IPC.

                                 Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376, 384, 323, 504, 506 – Code of
       Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Criminal proceeding
       against the appellant for having sexually exploited/assaulted
       the complainant for over a period of 16 years, based on a false
       promise of marriage – Appellant chargesheeted u/ss.376, 384,
       323, 504, 506 – Appellant sought quashing of proceedings –
       Rejected by the High Court – Justification:
       Held: Accused is not liable for the offence of rape if the victim
       has wilfully agreed to maintain sexual relations – Complainant’s
       allegations seem to be well-arranged story – Complainant,
       being a highly qualified major woman continued unabatedly in a
       consensual intimate sexual relationship with the appellant over
       a period of 16 years, which is sufficient to conclude that there
       was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship – It
       cannot be said that the appellant is liable to be prosecuted for
       having sexually exploited/assaulted the complainant based on a
       false promise of marriage – Allegations of the complainant are
       full of material contradictions and are ex facie unbelievable –
       Throughout the prolonged period of 16 years, the complainant
       kept completely quiet about the alleged sexual abuse, meted
       out to her by the appellant until she learnt that the appellant
       had married another woman – Further in complete contradiction
* Author
304                                                           [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       to the case setup in the FIR, the complainant has on many
       occasions portrayed herself to be the wife of the appellant and
       thus, evidently, they lived together as man and wife – Long gap
       of 16 years between the first alleged act of sexual intercourse,
       continued relations for one and a half decade till the filing of
       the FIR convinces that it is a clear case of a love affair/live in
       relationship gone sour – Allowing the prosecution of the appellant
       to continue for the offences alleged, would be nothing short of a
       gross abuse of the process of law– Impugned order quashed and
       set aside – Impugned FIR and proceedings arising thereunder
       quashed. [Paras 21, 24, 25, 27, 35, 37, 39]

                               Case Law Cited
       Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine
       SC 3471; Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 SCC OnLine
       SC 3375; Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana [2013] 6 SCR 544 :
       (2013) 7 SCC 675; Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka (2019) 18
       SCC 204 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.

                               List of Keywords
       Quashing of criminal proceedings; Forcible sexual intercourse;
       Promise of marriage; Obscene video; Causing miscarriage; Threat
       of making the obscene video/pictures viral; Forcibly taking money;
       Agreement of marriage; Relationship between two consenting
       adults; Love affair subsisting over one and a half decade; Gross
       abuse of process of law; Physical relationship directly traceable
       to false promise; Vitiation of consent under misconception of fact;
       Misconception of marriage; Secret marriage ceremony; Distinction
       between rape and consensual intercourse; Living together as man
       and wife; Ex facie unbelievable allegations.

                              Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       1055 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2023 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Allahabad In A482 No. 43177 of 2022
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                           305

                Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. and Another


                                    Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Dr. Purvish Malkan, Sr. Adv., Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Vishal Thakre,
       Ms. Anjale Kumari, Ms. Manshu Sharma, Dinesh Satyapal Sehgal,
       Aditya Yadav, Sanjeev Malhotra.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Ankit Goel, Vikas Bansal, Harshit Singhal, Nitin Meshram, Saurabh
       Singh, Rishi Raj Singh, Ranbir Singh Yadav.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                                 Judgment

       Mehta, J.

1.     Heard.
2.     Leave granted.
3.     The appellant herein has preferred the instant appeal by special leave,
       assailing the order dated 24th April, 2023, passed by the learned Single
       Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 1 dismissing the
       petition filed by the appellant, being Application U/S 482 No. 43177
       of 2022, for quashment of the proceedings of Criminal Case No.
       1246 of 2022 arising out of chargesheet in Case Crime No. 269 of
       2022 under Sections 376, 384, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal
       Code, 1860 2 at Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah.
4.     Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the present
       appeal are reproduced hereinbelow.
5.     Ms. A, respondent No. 2-complainant,3 lodged an FIR in Case
       Crime No. 269 of 2022 dated 5th July, 2022, against the appellant
       at Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah alleging, inter alia, that
       she is a resident of village Kudaria and was qualified with degrees
       in M.Com and B.Ed. and since 2008, she had been serving on the
       post of Lecturer in AFS Bhemora College in Lucknow.


1    Hereinafter, referred to as ‘High Court’.
2    Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘IPC’.
3    For short, ‘complainant’.
306                                                           [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


6.     It was alleged that the accused, appellant herein, sometime in the
       year 2006, sneaked into the house of the complainant in the night and
       subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. She was neither able to
       scream nor could call out for help as the appellant had gagged her
       mouth due to which her parents, who were also present in the house,
       were unable to get a wind of the incident. She warned the appellant
       that she would disclose about the incident to her family members,
       upon which the appellant apologised profoundly and requested
       her to remain quiet and gave her an assurance of marriage. The
       complainant, therefore, neither lodged any complaint nor did she take
       other action in respect of the incident of sexual assault upon her.
7.     The appellant initially, was working as a constable in the police
       department. Later, in 2009, he joined as a Clerk in the State Bank
       of India in Dhani branch of Maharajganj district. In the intervening
       period, the intimacy between the appellant and the complainant
       continued to flourish. The appellant had once called the complainant to
       Maharajganj, where he made her to consume some intoxicant mixed
       with ENO, without her knowledge, which made her semi-conscious.
       Taking advantage, the appellant subjected her to forcible sexual
       intercourse. He not only video-graphed the offending acts but later,
       showed it to the complainant when she regained consciousness. The
       complainant, fearing retribution in society, did not share information
       about the said incident with anyone. Subsequently, the complainant
       became pregnant which was confirmed with a pregnancy detection
       kit. When this information came to the knowledge of the appellant, he
       mixed some medication in water and made the complainant to drink
       it in order to cause miscarriage. Since the appellant continuously
       blackmailed and threatened the complainant using the obscene
       video, she did not tell anyone about the abortion.
8.     The complainant had initially gone to meet the appellant out of her
       own free will, but the appellant, later on, pressurised her under
       the threat of making the obscene video/pictures viral. She would
       therefore, meet him only with the objective of collecting the video
       from him so that she could delete it. In 2015, the appellant called
       the complainant to Pratapgarh and threatened her that if she did not
       accede to his demands, he would make the video viral.
9.     Additionally, it was also alleged in the FIR that the appellant forcibly
       took money from the complainant on a number of occasions. In
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                       307

               Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. and Another


      2011, the appellant had taken a cheque of Rs.94,000/- from the
      complainant, however, he did not return a dime to her. As the
      appellant threatened her by using the obscene video of intimate
      relations that he possessed, she did not complain to anyone, about
      the aforesaid criminal acts that had taken place with her between
      the years 2006 to 2021.
10. In 2021, a woman, named Namrata, entered into the life of the
    appellant, whereupon the complainant filed a complaint with Lucknow
    Commissionerate. However, she was advised to go to Etawah Police
    Station. Thereupon, she lodged a complaint against the appellant at
    the One Stop Centre, Lalitpur on 23rd March, 2022 which was closed
    based upon an agreement entered into between the complainant
    and the appellant, wherein they both agreed to marry each other.
    However, on 22nd April, 2022, the appellant resiled from his promise
    and married Namrata. When the factum of appellant’s marriage
    came to the complainant’s knowledge, she immediately shared the
    information of the illegal acts and incidents of sexual assaults by the
    appellant with her family members and the people of her community.
    Later, when she decided to take police action, the appellant along
    with his brother-Ashwani and father-Rajbahadur made an attempt to
    cause harm to her parents. On 1st May, 2022, the appellant barged
    into her house, in the presence of her parents, and threatened that
    she would be killed if she continued with the legal cases filed by her.
11. Based on the above allegations, an FIR4 dated 5th July, 2022, came to
    be registered against the appellant for the offences punishable under
    Sections 313, 376, 384, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and investigation
    was commenced. Almost similar allegations were set in the statements
    of the complainant recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Code
    of Criminal Procedure, 19735 and in addition, she further stated that
    upon discovering that the appellant had developed relations with
    Namrata, she had disclosed everything to her but in spite thereof,
    Namrata got married to appellant on 22nd April, 2022.
12. Consequent to the completion of the investigation, the police submitted
    a report under Section 173(2) CrPC dated 29th September, 2022,
    against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections


4   FIR No. 269 of 2022.
5   Hereinafter, referred to as ‘CrPC’.
308                                                        [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       376, 384, 323, 504 and 506 IPC in the Court of learned Additional
       Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-04, Etawah. Vide order dated
       10th November, 2022, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the
       above offences and issued summons to the appellant. Aggrieved, the
       appellant filed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking
       quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1246 of 2022 in the
       High Court. The quashing petition stands rejected vide order dated
       24th April, 2023, which is assailed in this appeal by special leave.

       SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: -
13. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently and fervently urged that
    the entire case as set out in the impugned FIR and the chargesheet
    is false and cooked up. The complainant is a major educated girl, who
    was fully conscious of the consequences of the intimate relationship
    which flourished between her and the appellant for a period of almost
    16 years. The acts of repeated intimacy and sexual relations were
    totally consensual in nature and were not established under any
    false promise, threat, duress or coercion. The appellant all along
    intended to marry the complainant. He thus, urged that the case of a
    prolonged voluntary relationship/love affair between two consenting
    adults has been given a colour of forcible sexual intercourse with
    oblique purposes and motive.
14. Learned counsel further submitted that, as a matter of fact, the
    appellant and the complainant had performed the rituals of marriage
    with each other during the subsistence of their love affair which
    extended to over one and a half decade. However, the relationship
    went sour leading to the strife and culminated into the FIR. In this
    regard, he placed reliance on the application dated 25th May, 2022,
    given by the complainant to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
    Etawah and urged that the said application was filed prior to the
    lodging of the FIR, wherein the complainant had categorically
    mentioned her marital status as the wife of the appellant. She had
    also alleged in the complaint that her husband, i.e., the appellant
    herein, had refused to keep her with him.
15. Learned counsel urged that it is a case of voluntary sexual relationship
    between two consenting adults and hence, the proceedings of the
    criminal case registered against the appellant for the aforesaid
    offences, tantamount to a gross abuse of the process of law and
    therefore, the same deserve to be quashed.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                           309

           Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. and Another


     SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: -
16. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel
    appearing for the complainant have vehemently opposed the
    submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant. They urged
    that the appellant won over the confidence of the complainant by
    giving her false assurances of marriage and based on such promise
    he sexually exploited her, when in fact, he had no intentions to marry
    her. After subjecting the complainant to forcible sexual intercourse
    repeatedly over a period of almost 15 years, the appellant ditched
    her and married another woman.
17. Learned counsel further contended that the appellant had also
    recorded intimate videos and pictures of the complainant and
    blackmailed her under the threat of making them viral. They, urged
    that the High Court was justified in dismissing the criminal petition filed
    by the appellant and hence, sought rejection of the present appeal.

     ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: -
18. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions
    advanced at the bar and have carefully gone through the impugned
    judgment and the material placed on record.
19. The allegation that the appellant spiked the complainant’s drink and
    caused her miscarriage stands refuted as the Investigation Officer
    has deleted Section 313 IPC while submitting the police report
    under Section 173(2) CrPC dated 29th September, 2022. Further,
    Investigation Officer also concluded that the involvement of the other
    co-accused, i.e., the relatives of the appellant who were arraigned
    by the complainant in the FIR, was not substantiated by any reliable
    evidence and thus, the chargesheet was only submitted against the
    appellant.
20. Therefore, we have to consider whether in the facts and circumstances
    of the present case, the appellant is liable to be prosecuted for
    committing rape upon the complainant by giving her a false promise
    of marriage.
21. There is no dispute that the complainant, a highly qualified female, was
    major at the time when her relationship with the appellant sprouted.
    The first act of sexual intercourse between the appellant and the
    complainant is alleged to have taken place in the year 2006 and
310                                                          [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       that too in her own house. However, at that time, the complainant
       did not make any complaint to anyone, including her own family
       members, that the appellant had established sexual relations with
       her based on an express promise to marry her in future. It needs
       to be highlighted that the complainant categorically came out with
       a case in the FIR that the first act of sexual relation between her
       and the appellant (albeit forcible as per the complainant) took place
       in her own house where her parents were also present. The very
       manner in which this incident is said to have taken place, puts the
       case of the complainant under serious doubt. It is difficult to swallow
       that the complainant, a well-qualified major girl, was subjected to
       forcible sexual intercourse by an outsider in her own house where
       her parents were present and still, they did not get a whiff about
       the incident. Thus, the complainant’s allegations seem to be a well-
       orchestrated story and nothing beyond that.
22. It was nearly 16 years since the first incident, in a highly belated FIR,
    that the complainant alleged, for the first time, that the appellant,
    who was on friendly terms with her, forcibly subjected her to sexual
    intercourse in the year 2006. Further, she also stated that though she
    initially protested to this act and intended to report the matter to the
    police, she changed her mind trusting the appellant’s assurance that
    he loved her and if she refrained from spilling the beans, he would
    marry her. Under this guise, the appellant continued to establish
    sexual relations with the complainant.
23. Admittedly, the appellant got a job in the year 2006 as a Constable
    in the police department and was posted in a different town. The
    complainant alleged that whenever the appellant would visit the
    village Kudaria, he would establish sexual relations with her under
    the promise of marriage. However, she has not clarified or elaborated
    when and where these acts of fornication took place. In the year
    2008, the complainant came to be appointed as a Lecturer in the
    Kendriya Vidyalaya whereas, the appellant in the year 2009, got a
    job as a Clerk in the State Bank of India. As per the complainant, in
    the year 2009, the appellant called her to his residence in the town
    Farinda, Anand Nagar, where he mixed certain intoxicating substance
    in her drink and thereafter, subjected her to sexual assault and
    while she was in the state of drug induced stupor, he recorded her
    obscene videos and pictures. He, thereafter, sent offensive messages
    to the complainant on WhatsApp, threatening that he would make
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                        311

            Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. and Another


     her videos and pictures viral unless she continued to have sexual
     relations with him.
24. It does not stand to reason that when the intimate relations were
    continuing between the parties without any hitch for more than three
    years, then why would the appellant be impelled to take the trouble
    of spiking the drink of the complainant in order to establish sexual
    relations with her.
25. It is hard to believe that the complainant, being a highly qualified and
    well-placed major woman, kept on bending to the demands of the
    appellant for a period of nearly 16 years without raising any protest
    to any quarter that the appellant was exploiting her sexually under
    the pretext of a false promise of marriage. The prolonged period of
    16 years during which the sexual relations continued unabatedly
    between the parties, is sufficient to conclude that there was never an
    element of force or deceit in the relationship. The complainant and
    the appellant were posted at different places pursuing their respective
    jobs. On a few occasions, the appellant would visit the complainant
    at her place whereas on other occasions, the complainant was
    called by the appellant to his house where these acts of fornication
    continued unabatedly till the year 2020/2021. It is almost impossible
    to swallow the version of the complainant that for the entire period
    of 16 years, she unreservedly allowed the appellant to subject her
    to repeated acts of sexual intercourse under the impression that
    the accused would on someday act upon his promise of marriage.
26. In the case of Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra,6 this
    Court held that to make a man, accused of having sexual relationship
    by making a false promise of marriage, criminally liable, the physical
    relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise made
    and it must not be qualified by other circumstances or consideration.
    In a situation where the woman knowingly maintains the physical
    relationship for a prolonged period, it cannot be said with certainty
    that the said physical relationship was purely because of alleged
    promise made by the accused to marry her.
27. In conclusion, the Court held that unless it can be shown that the
    physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage


6   2024 SCC OnLine SC 3471
312                                                         [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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.
28. In the case of Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi),7 this Court observed
    that it is inconceivable that the complainant would continue to meet the
    accused or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship
    with him in the absence of voluntary consent on her part.
29. Testing the facts of the case at hand, on the touchstone of the above
    precedents, it is clear that the complainant, being a highly qualified
    major woman continued in a consensual intimate sexual relationship
    with the appellant over a period of 16 years. At some point in time, the
    relationship went sour leading to the filing of the FIR. No reasonable
    man would accept the version that the complainant allowed the
    accused to establish sexual relations with her over a period of 16
    years purely under the misconception of marriage.
30. There is no dispute that from the year 2006 onwards, the complainant
    and the appellant were residing in different towns. The complainant
    is an educated woman and there was no pressure whatsoever upon
    her which could have prevented her from filing a police complaint
    against the accused if she felt that the sexual relations were under
    duress or were being established under a false assurance of
    marriage. On many occasions, she even portrayed herself to be
    the wife of the appellant thereby, dispelling the allegation that the
    intention of the appellant was to cheat her right from the inception of
    the relationship. We cannot remain oblivious to the fact that it was
    mostly the complainant who used to travel to meet the appellant at
    his place of posting. Therefore, we are convinced that the relationship
    between the complainant and appellant was consensual without the
    existence of any element of deceit or misconception.
31. Further, the application filed by the complainant at One Stop Center,
    Lalitpur on 23rd March, 2022, makes it abundantly clear that she


7   2024 SCC OnLine SC 3375
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                         313

             Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. and Another


     was in a consensual relationship with the appellant since 2006. It
     is alleged in the complaint that when she had proposed that they
     should marry and live together, the appellant physically abused her
     and beat her up. If at all there was an iota of truth in this allegation
     then the FIR should have been registered immediately after this
     incident. However, it is only when it came to the knowledge of the
     complainant that the appellant was getting married to another woman,
     in an attempt to stop his marriage, she filed aforesaid complaint at
     the One Stop Center wherein she also admitted that she was equally
     guilty as the appellant and therefore, his marriage must be stopped.
32. Further, on the perusal of the statement made by the complainant
    under Section 161 CrPC, it is evident that she came to know about
    the relations between the appellant and Namrata in the year 2020-
    2021. Thus, once the complainant was aware that the appellant had
    broken the ties with her and was involved in a relationship with another
    woman, there was no reason for her to hold back from filing the FIR.
33. To the contrary, the complainant has herself set up a case that there
    was a secret marriage ceremony between her and the appellant.
    Therefore, in our opinion, even if the allegations made by the
    complainant are accepted on their face value, it is evident that
    the appellant and the complainant were in a long-standing live-in
    relationship during which they even performed marriage rituals albeit
    informal in nature.
34. It is trite that there is a distinction between rape and consensual
    intercourse. This Court in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana,8
    differentiated between a mere breach of promise and not fulfilling a
    false promise and held that an accused will only be liable if the Courts
    concludes that his intentions are mala fide and he has clandestine
    motives. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow: -
            “21. 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 consensual sex and in a case like this, the court



8   (2013) 7 SCC 675
314                                                    [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                 Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 the 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 accused; 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 misrepresentation 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 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.
       ...
       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
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                              315

             Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. and Another


            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)

35. It is, therefore, clear that the accused is not liable for the offence
    of rape if the victim has wilfully agreed to maintain sexual relations.
    The Court has also recognised that a prosecutrix can agree to
    have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the
    accused.
36. This Court in Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka,9 had quashed
    criminal proceedings on the ground that it is difficult to hold sexual
    intercourse in the course of a relationship, which continued for eight
    years, as ‘rape’ especially when the complainant therein had alleged
    that they lived together as man and wife. The relevant extract is
    reproduced hereinbelow: -
            “4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is
            difficult to sustain the charges levelled against the appellant
            who may have possibly, made a false promise of marriage
            to the complainant. It is, however, difficult to hold sexual
            intercourse in the course of a relationship which has
            continued for eight years, as “rape” especially in the
            face of the complainant’s own allegation that they
            lived together as man and wife.”
                                                    (emphasis supplied)

37. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, can this Court be convinced that
    present is a case wherein the appellant is liable to be prosecuted
    for having sexually exploited/assaulted the complainant based on
    a false promise of marriage. The allegations of the complainant
    are full of material contradictions and are ex facie unbelievable.
    Throughout the prolonged period of 16 years, the complainant kept
    completely quiet about the alleged sexual abuse, meted out to her by
    the appellant until she learnt that the appellant had married another
    woman. Further in complete contradiction to the case setup in the



9   (2019) 18 SCC 204
316                                                         [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


       FIR, the complainant has on many occasions portrayed herself to
       be the wife of the appellant and thus, evidently, they lived together
       as man and wife. Additionally, the long gap of 16 years between the
       first alleged act of sexual intercourse, continued relations for one
       and a half decade till the filing of the FIR convinces us that it is a
       clear case of a love affair/live in relationship gone sour.
38. In this background, we are of the opinion that allowing the prosecution
    of the appellant to continue for the offences alleged, under Sections
    376, 384, 323, 504 and 506 IPC would be nothing short of a gross
    abuse of the process of law.
39. The order dated 24th April, 2023, passed by the High Court of Judicature
    at Allahabad is quashed and set aside and as a consequence, the
    impugned FIR No. 269 of 2022 and all the consequent proceedings
    sought to be taken thereunder against the appellant are also quashed
    and set aside.
40. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
41. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain