Introduction:

In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court recently ruled that a long-standing consensual adulterous physical relationship does not amount to rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The decision came from Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, who quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of raping a married woman under the pretext of a promise to marry her after her husband’s death. The court noted that both parties had engaged in a consensual physical relationship for a significant period, and there was no element of cheating or coercion. The alleged victim, a married woman with two grown-up children, had entered into the relationship of her own free will, driven by personal desires. The circumstances surrounding the accusation did not support a charge of rape.

Background:

The case was initiated when the alleged victim, a married woman, filed an FIR in March 2018 accusing the applicant, a much younger man who worked for her husband, of raping her on the pretext of marrying her. According to her, her husband had introduced her to the accused, claiming he would care for her due to the husband’s incapacity caused by diabetes. Over the years, she and the accused developed a consensual physical relationship. She claimed the accused had promised to marry her after her husband passed away. However, when her husband died in May 2017, the accused continued the relationship without fulfilling his alleged promise of marriage. She later discovered that the accused had become engaged to another woman in December 2017, which led to the filing of the FIR.

In her complaint, the alleged victim claimed that after confronting the accused about his engagement, he called her to a godown and allegedly raped her at gunpoint. She further claimed that he had made a video of the act and threatened to release it if she did not comply with his demands. She also alleged that the accused demanded Rs. 50 lakhs as a form of blackmail.

Arguments of the Petitioner (Accused):

The accused denied all allegations, claiming the FIR was filed maliciously to avoid settling a financial dispute involving Rs. 1 crore. The accused’s counsel, Senior Advocate V.P. Srivastava, supported by Advocates Vijit Saxena and Irfan Hasan, argued that the relationship between the accused and the alleged victim was consensual and had been ongoing for years. He emphasized that the woman was of mature age, with two grown-up children, and had voluntarily entered into the relationship with the accused.

The defense also highlighted that the woman’s accusation of rape based on a promise of marriage was not credible since she was legally married at the time and therefore incapable of entering into a marriage contract with the accused. The counsel argued that the alleged promise of marriage could not be the basis for a rape charge because the woman was already married and fully aware of her marital status throughout the relationship.

The defense further contended that the FIR was lodged after the accused got engaged to another woman, indicating the prosecutrix had filed the complaint out of anger and jealousy rather than due to any actual wrongdoing by the accused. The defense presented evidence of a financial dispute between the accused and the prosecutrix’s family, particularly involving her son, which they claimed was the real motive behind the false accusations.

Arguments of the Respondent (Alleged Victim):

The alleged victim’s counsel, Advocate Jagdev Singh, argued that the accused had betrayed her trust by engaging in a relationship under false pretenses. She claimed that she had entered into a physical relationship with the accused because he had promised to marry her after her husband’s death. After the accused’s engagement to another woman, the prosecutrix claimed that the accused not only broke his promise but also committed rape and blackmailed her by threatening to release a video of their encounter. The alleged victim insisted that while her relationship with the accused had been consensual at times, it had turned coercive when he forcibly raped her at gunpoint in a godown.

The respondent’s counsel argued that the accused had exploited her vulnerability due to her marital issues and her husband’s incapacity. They claimed that after establishing physical relations, the accused used emotional manipulation to maintain control over the victim by making false promises of marriage, which he had no intention of fulfilling.

The prosecutrix maintained that the subsequent rape incident was a clear case of coercion and physical force, as she had been threatened with a gun and blackmailed with a video recording. Her counsel contended that this incident should be treated separately from the earlier consensual relationship, as it involved clear elements of coercion and criminal intimidation.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

The Allahabad High Court, after considering both sides of the case, ruled in favor of the accused and quashed the criminal proceedings. Justice Anish Kumar Gupta noted several key factors that influenced the court’s decision:

• Consensual Relationship:

The court observed that the relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix had been consensual for an extended period. The court found no evidence of deception or coercion at the inception of the relationship. Both parties had willingly engaged in the physical relationship, driven by personal desires, with full knowledge of their circumstances.

• Incapacity to Marry:

The court found that the promise of marriage, which the prosecutrix claimed had been made by the accused, was irrelevant since the prosecutrix was already married. As a married woman, she was legally incapable of entering into a marriage contract with the accused, and therefore, any alleged promise of marriage held no legal weight.

• Age and Influence:

The court also considered the significant age difference between the prosecutrix and the accused, as well as the fact that the accused was employed in the business of the prosecutrix’s husband. This led the court to conclude that the prosecutrix had exercised undue influence over the accused due to his financial dependence on her family. The court remarked that the prosecutrix had “allured” the accused into the relationship, further undermining her claims of coercion.

• Fabrication of Rape Charge:

Regarding the alleged rape incident in the godown, the court found there was insufficient evidence to support the prosecutrix’s claims. The court took into account the Final Report, which revealed discrepancies in the call records and location details, undermining the prosecutrix’s version of events. Moreover, the court found that the FIR appeared to have been filed out of frustration and jealousy after the accused’s engagement to another woman, rather than due to any genuine incident of rape.

• Financial Dispute:

The court also noted the existence of a financial dispute between the accused and the prosecutrix’s family. The investigation revealed that the FIR was likely filed as a means to avoid paying the Rs. 1 crore that the prosecutrix’s son owed the accused, further casting doubt on the authenticity of the allegations.

Based on these observations, the High Court concluded that no case of rape could be made against the accused under Section 375 IPC, as the relationship was consensual, and the prosecutrix had used the FIR as a tool for personal and financial gain. The court quashed the criminal proceedings and allowed the application filed by the accused for relief.