PRAYAGRAJ<\/em>: The Allahabad High Court<\/a><\/strong> has quashed criminal proceedings<\/strong> against a man accused of rape<\/strong> on the allegation of false promise of marriage. The Court held that the material on record showed a long consensual relationship between two adults, and not a case where consent was obtained by fraud from the beginning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The petition was filed by Sanjay Saroj alias Sanjay Kumar. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh<\/strong> allowed the petition and set aside the chargesheet, cognizance order and all criminal proceedings arising from a 2019 FIR <\/a>registered in Prayagraj under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that the woman and the accused were in a relationship for nearly five years. On these facts, the Court said the matter appeared to be “a clear case of a love relationship turned sour.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n As per the FIR, the woman had come to Prayagraj in 2014 for preparation of competitive examinations. She alleged that the accused, who was a distant relative, helped her in getting admission and later established physical relations with her after assuring her that he would marry her. She also alleged that when she asked him to fulfil the promise of marriage, he assaulted and threatened her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the High Court found that the FIR was lodged only in August 2019, though the alleged first act had taken place in 2014. The Court also noted that no complaint was made during the five years in between.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Singh observed that the prosecutrix was around 29 years old when the FIR was filed. The Court said she was not of immature age and was capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her decisions. The Court held that she was “mature and intelligent enough”<\/em><\/strong> to understand the relationship and its consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “It is not the case where the victim was of an immature age, who could not foresee her welfare and take right decisions. She was mature and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of the moral and immoral acts for which she consented during subsistence of her relations,”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court also found that the FIR did not clearly mention the date, time or place of the alleged first incident of rape. This was another important factor against continuing the criminal case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another major fact before the Court was that the parties had later married. The accused stated that after the FIR, both parties got married on August 27, 2019 in an Arya Samaj ceremony in the presence of family members. The prosecutrix did not deny that the marriage took place, though she claimed it was only a sham.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court held that the record did not support the allegation that the accused had no intention to marry her from the beginning. The Court explained the difference between a false promise of marriage and a promise which could not later be fulfilled<\/strong>. For rape, it must be shown that the promise to marry was false from the very start and was made only to obtain consent for physical relations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this case, the Court found no such material. The facts showed a long relationship, repeated meetings, continued physical relations and silence for five years till the relationship went bad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Singh also referred to recent Supreme Court judgments, including Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025),<\/strong> where the Supreme Court<\/a> cautioned courts against converting failed consensual relationships into rape prosecutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court noted that the woman and the accused remained close for five years and maintained physical relations during that time. The Court found that the case did not show absence of consent. Instead, it showed that the relationship continued voluntarily for a long period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The only logical inference that emerges is that the victim, on her own volition, visited and met the applicant-accused on each occasion,”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court finally held that the basic ingredients of rape were not made out<\/strong>. It said that allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to abuse of the process of law. The Court therefore quashed the chargesheet, summoning order and the entire criminal proceedings against the accused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ruling is important because it again underlines that criminal law cannot be used to punish a man only because a consensual relationship later fails<\/strong>. A broken relationship, by itself, does not become rape unless the prosecution shows that the promise of marriage was false from the very beginning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nEXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS MENTIONED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
LAW \/ SECTION<\/strong><\/td> SIMPLE MEANING<\/strong><\/td> HOW IT WAS RELEVANT IN THIS CASE<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 482 Cr.P.C.<\/strong><\/td> Inherent power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure justice.<\/td> The applicant approached the High Court under this provision for quashing the chargesheet, summoning order and entire proceedings.<\/td><\/tr> Section 528 BNSS <\/a>\/ B.N.S.S.<\/strong><\/td> New equivalent inherent power provision under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.<\/td> The Court discussed quashing power under Section 528 BNSS along with Section 482 Cr.P.C.<\/td><\/tr> Section 376 IPC<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Punishment for rape.<\/td> This was the main allegation. The Court held that the ingredients of rape were not made out because the relationship appeared consensual and long-term.<\/td><\/tr> Section 323 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.<\/td> Alleged in the FIR, but the Court noted lack of material particulars supporting physical assault.<\/td><\/tr> Section 504 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.<\/td> Alleged along with other sections, but the Court found basic ingredients and supporting particulars missing.<\/td><\/tr> Section 506 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Criminal intimidation \/ threat.<\/td> Alleged by the prosecutrix, but the Court found no sufficient material to continue prosecution.<\/td><\/tr> Section 161 Cr.P.C.<\/strong><\/td> Police statement during investigation.<\/td> The prosecutrix\u2019s statement was recorded under this section during investigation.<\/td><\/tr> Section 164 Cr.P.C.<\/strong><\/td> Statement recorded before Magistrate.<\/td> The prosecutrix\u2019s statement before the Magistrate was considered by the Court.<\/td><\/tr> Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.<\/strong><\/td> Police report \/ chargesheet after investigation.<\/td> Earlier protection from arrest was granted till submission of police report under this section.<\/td><\/tr> Section 156(1) Cr.P.C.<\/strong><\/td> Police power to investigate cognizable offences.<\/td> Mentioned while reproducing Bhajan Lal guidelines on quashing of FIR\/proceedings.<\/td><\/tr> Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.<\/strong><\/td> Police need Magistrate\u2019s order to investigate non-cognizable offences.<\/td> Mentioned in Bhajan Lal guidelines reproduced by the Court.<\/td><\/tr> Section 313 Cr.P.C.<\/strong><\/td> Examination of accused by court after prosecution evidence.<\/td> Mentioned in one of the Supreme Court decisions relied upon by the High Court.<\/td><\/tr> Section 375 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Defines rape and consent-related ingredients.<\/td> The Court discussed consent, misconception of fact and false promise of marriage in relation to rape.<\/td><\/tr> Section 90 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Consent given under fear or misconception of fact is not valid consent.<\/td> Used in cited judgments to explain when consent becomes legally invalid.<\/td><\/tr> Section 376(2)(n) IPC<\/strong><\/td> Repeated rape on the same woman.<\/td> Mentioned in Supreme Court precedents relied upon by the High Court while discussing prolonged consensual relationships.<\/td><\/tr> Section 377 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Unnatural offences under the old IPC framework.<\/td> Mentioned only in a cited Supreme Court case, not as the charge in the present case.<\/td><\/tr> Section 417 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Cheating.<\/td> Mentioned in a cited Supreme Court case, not as a charge in the present case.<\/td><\/tr> Section 34 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Common intention.<\/td> Mentioned in a cited Supreme Court case, not as a charge in the present case.<\/td><\/tr> Section 6 POCSO Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child.<\/td> Mentioned in a cited Supreme Court case dealing with minor-related allegations.<\/td><\/tr> Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a), 3(2)(v) SC\/ST Act<\/strong><\/td> Offences relating to insult, intimidation and aggravated offences against SC\/ST persons.<\/td> Mentioned in a cited Supreme Court case where proceedings under the SC\/ST Act were also quashed.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
DETAIL<\/strong><\/td> EXTRACTED INFORMATION<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Case Title<\/strong><\/td> Sanjay Saroj @ Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another<\/td><\/tr> Court<\/strong><\/td> High Court of Judicature at Allahabad<\/td><\/tr> Neutral Citation<\/strong><\/td> 2026:AHC:127913<\/td><\/tr> Case Number<\/strong><\/td> Application U\/S 482 No. 752 of 2022<\/td><\/tr> Court Number<\/strong><\/td> Court No. 45<\/td><\/tr> Bench<\/strong><\/td> Hon\u2019ble Vivek Kumar Singh, J.<\/td><\/tr> Reserved On<\/strong><\/td> 06.05.2026<\/td><\/tr> Delivered On<\/strong><\/td> 18.06.2026<\/td><\/tr> Applicant<\/strong><\/td> Sanjay Saroj @ Sanjay Kumar<\/td><\/tr> Opposite Parties<\/strong><\/td> State of U.P. and Another<\/td><\/tr> Counsel for Applicant<\/strong><\/td> Amit Daga, Senior Counsel, assisted by Ramesh Chandra<\/td><\/tr> Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2<\/strong><\/td> Arvind Kumar Bhardwaj<\/td><\/tr> Counsel for State<\/strong><\/td> Rabindra Kumar Singh, AGA<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n