Can a man still face a rape trial despite a long consensual relationship suggesting a honey trap?
The Gujarat High Court held that without a prima facie offence, such prosecution cannot continue.
AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court, through Hon’ble Mrs. Justice M. K. Thakker, set aside a serious rape case after closely examining the facts and conduct of the parties. The Court found that the case did not disclose any real offence and instead reflected a situation where a consensual relationship was later turned into criminal allegations.
The case began with a complaint by a woman who was running a beauty parlour and had first connected with the accused through Facebook. Their interaction gradually developed into regular contact and multiple meetings over a long period. The complainant alleged that on certain occasions she was given drinks, felt dizzy, and that physical relations were established against her will, along with threats not to disclose the incidents.
However, the record also showed that despite these allegations, she continued to meet the accused repeatedly, travelled with him, and maintained ongoing contact over months and years. The defence highlighted that the relationship was consensual from the beginning and later disputes arose when monetary demands were allegedly made and not fulfilled.
When the Court analysed the entire sequence, it found inconsistencies in the complaint and noted the absence of specific timelines for serious allegations. It also observed that the conduct of the complainant did not support the claim of continuous coercion, especially when she kept meeting the accused voluntarily.
The Court then made a clear and decisive observation on the nature of the case, stating:
“This is a case of honey trap and not, in any manner, a case of rape. Keeping the video on, indulging into physical relations, sending friend request, time and again accompanied the applicant is nothing but consensual relations made by the complainant which was subsequently used to extort the money.”
The Court further held that such allegations cannot justify a criminal trial, observing:
“The applicant cannot be sent for the trial for false allegations.”
Relying on settled legal principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court concluded that even if the allegations were accepted at face value, they did not establish a prima facie offence and appeared inherently improbable.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the application and ordered that the FIR and all proceedings arising from it be quashed, bringing an end to the case at the threshold itself.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Section 376(1), Indian Penal Code | Punishes rape with rigorous imprisonment | Alleged by complainant, but Court found no rape as relations were consensual |
| Section 114, Indian Penal Code | Holds abettor liable if present during offence | Applied to co-accused, but lost relevance after FIR was quashed |
| Section 506(1)(2), Indian Penal Code | Punishes criminal intimidation including threats of serious harm | Alleged threats were part of complaint but not sustained due to overall findings |
| Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure | Gives High Court inherent power to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process | Invoked by accused to seek quashing; Court exercised this power |
| Bhajan Lal Principles (Supreme Court) | Guidelines for quashing FIR where no offence is made out or case is malicious | Court relied on these principles to hold FIR was baseless and improbable |
Case Details
- Case Title: Manojbhai Kachrabhai Vasoya vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Court: Gujarat High Court
- Case Number: R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 10969 of 2021
- Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice M. K. Thakker
- Date of Order: 10/04/2026
- Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:26565
- Counsels
- For Applicant: Mr. Rahul R. Dholakia
- For State: Mr. Ronak Raval, APP
Key Takeaways
- Not every allegation arising out of a consensual relationship amounts to a criminal offence, especially where elements of a honey trap are evident.
- Mere claims without consistent conduct and supporting facts are insufficient to sustain serious charges like rape.
- Where facts indicate a pattern resembling a honey trap or financial coercion, criminal law cannot be permitted to be used as a pressure tactic.
- The judiciary is prepared to intervene at an early stage to prevent misuse of stringent criminal provisions and avoid unnecessary trials.
- Where allegations appear doubtful, exaggerated, or inherently improbable, the accused should not be subjected to prolonged criminal proceedings.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
