The Court observed that a promise of marriage does not automatically render consensual intercourse as rape unless it is proven that such a promise was false from the outset.
The Allahabad High Court recently determined that a long-term consensual adulterous relationship, without any initial deception, does not qualify as rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Shrey Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Another].
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta further explained that a promise of marriage does not render consensual intercourse as rape unless it can be demonstrated that the promise was insincere from the outset.
“Each and every promise of marriage would not be considered as a fact of misconception for the purpose of consensual sexual intercourse unless it is established that such promise of marriage was a false promise of marriage on the part of the accused since the beginning of such relationship. Unless it is alleged that from the very beginning of such relationship there was some element of cheating on the part of the accused while making such promise, it would not be treated as a false promise of marriage,” he observed.
Consequently, the court dismissed the criminal charges against Shrey Gupta, who had been accused of rape following a complaint from a widow.
The widow alleged that Gupta had engaged in a physical relationship with her under the guise of marriage after her husband’s death.
She claimed that Gupta repeatedly promised to marry her but later broke that promise and became engaged to another woman.
Furthermore, she accused him of extortion, stating that Gupta demanded ₹50 lakh to prevent the release of a video featuring their intimate moments.
In light of her allegations, the trial court acknowledged offenses under Section 376 (rape) and Section 386 (extortion) of the IPC.
However, the accused sought relief from the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), requesting the dismissal of the charge sheet and the entire criminal proceedings.
He argued that the relationship was consensual from the beginning and that the allegations of rape and extortion were baseless.
The Court reviewed the facts and observed that the complainant, a widow, and the accused had been in a consensual physical relationship for nearly 12-13 years, even during her husband’s lifetime. The judgment emphasized that the complainant had exerted undue influence over the accused, who was much younger and had worked in her late husband’s business.
“Admittedly, the applicant is much younger in age to the prosecutrix and was an employee in the business of the husband of the prosecutrix. Thus, she was having undue influence over the applicant, whereby she had forced the applicant into physical relations with her,” the Court said.
The Court also took into account the legal definition of rape as outlined in Section 375 of the IPC, which states that for an act to be classified as rape, a woman’s consent must be obtained through coercion, threats, or a misunderstanding of the facts.
“Under Section 375 I.P.C., the consent needs the voluntary participation of the prosecutrix in the physical relationship with the accused. The consent of such physical relationship would only be vitiated when it was given under some misconception of fact or under fear of injury to the victim or any person in whom the victim was interested,” the Court said.
The Court also examined the extortion charges under Section 386 of the IPC. The complainant claimed that Gupta threatened to release intimate video clips unless she paid him ₹50 lakh. However, the Court noted discrepancies in her testimony and the evidence provided.
“The further story is that on 17.01.2018 the applicant had put a country-made pistol on her head and had forcibly raped her and prepared the video clip. From the record, neither the video clip is recovered nor the said country-made pistol has been recovered from possession of the applicant or on the indication of the applicant herein,” court noted.
Referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Naim Ahamed v. State of Haryana, the High Court underscored that not every broken promise to marry should be viewed as a false promise justifying prosecution for rape under Section 376 of the IPC. As a result, the Court dismissed the criminal proceedings against Shrey Gupta, determining that the allegations did not meet the legal standards for charges of rape or extortion.
