Does refusal to marry later automatically make a man a rapist?
Allahabad High Court held that a man cannot automatically be treated as a rapist merely because he later refused to marry after being in a consensual relationship, especially when there is no evidence of dishonest intention from the beginning.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court recently quashed rape proceedings filed against a man accused of establishing physical relations on the false promise of marriage, observing that a failed relationship between two consenting adults cannot automatically be turned into a criminal case.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, who held that criminal law should not be misused after consensual relationships turn sour.
According to the case, the woman and the accused came in contact during a marriage function and remained in a relationship for nearly one year. The woman alleged that the accused promised to marry her, but later refused, after which an FIR was lodged under rape and other IPC provisions.
While examining the case, the Court found several inconsistencies in the allegations. The FIR did not clearly mention the exact date, time or place of the alleged rape. The Court also noted that the woman’s statements changed during investigation. Medical examination did not show any injury marks and the woman herself admitted that she was a major who voluntarily remained in the relationship.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh relied upon several Supreme Court judgments dealing with consensual relationships and false promise of marriage allegations. Referring to Mahesh Damu Khare Vs State of Maharashtra, the Court noted that:
“If a man is accused of having sexual relationship by making a false promise of marriage and if he is to be held criminally liable, any such physical relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise made.”
The High Court also relied upon Prashant Vs State of NCT of Delhi, where the Supreme Court observed:
“A mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings.”
The Court further referred to Supreme Court observations warning against misuse of rape laws in failed relationships. It quoted that:
“To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice.”
Explaining the legal position, the High Court stated that there is a major difference between a false promise to marry and a simple failure to marry later due to changing circumstances. Referring to Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that:
“A breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise.”
It observed that the woman and the accused remained in a consensual relationship for nearly one year and both families were aware about it. The woman herself admitted that she voluntarily remained in the relationship.
The Court further noted that there is-
“A growing trend that consensual relationships going on for a prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence.”
Finding no material to show that the accused had dishonest intentions from the beginning, the Allahabad High Court quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and entire criminal proceedings against the accused man.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied In This Case |
| Section 376 IPC | Punishment for rape | Woman alleged physical relationship was established on false promise of marriage |
| Section 323 IPC | Punishment for causing hurt | Allegation of physical assault by accused |
| Section 342 IPC | Punishment for wrongful confinement | Woman alleged she was wrongfully confined |
| Section 506 IPC | Punishment for criminal intimidation | Allegation that accused threatened the woman |
| Section 528 BNSS | High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings | Accused approached High Court seeking quashing of FIR and proceedings |
| Section 161 CrPC | Recording statement during police investigation | Woman’s statement was recorded by police during investigation |
| Section 164 CrPC | Recording statement before Magistrate | Court examined woman’s judicial statement while deciding the matter |
| Section 90 IPC | Defines consent obtained under misconception of fact | Court analysed whether consent was obtained through false promise |
| Section 375 IPC | Defines offence of rape | Court examined whether ingredients of rape were actually made out |
Case Details
- Case Title: Sanjay @ Sanjay Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Another
- Court: Allahabad High Court
- Case No.: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 29363 of 2025
- Bench: Hon’ble Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
- Date Of Judgment: 20.05.2026
- Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:116590
- Counsels:
- For Applicant: Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, andDevendra Singh Kushwaha
- For Opposite Party: Sri Mahesh Kumar Sahani, and Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, AGA
Key Takeaways
- Every failed relationship cannot be converted into a rape allegation after emotions change or marriage discussions fail.
- Consensual relationships between adults should not be criminalised merely because one partner later feels disappointed or betrayed.
- A simple refusal to marry later does not automatically prove cheating or criminal intent from the beginning.
- Misuse of criminal law in personal relationship disputes destroys lives, reputations and the credibility of genuine victims.
- Criminal justice cannot become a weapon for emotional revenge, social pressure or forced marriage.
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.
