The Allahabad High Court recently held that a long-standing consensual adulterous physical relationship without any element of deception from its inception does not amount to rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Shrey Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Another].
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta also held that a promise of marriage does not automatically render consensual intercourse rape, unless it is proven that such a promise was false 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.
Hence, it quashed the criminal proceedings against one Shrey Gupta who was booked for rape on a complaint by a widow (complainant).
The widow alleged that Gupta had established physical relationship with her under the pretext of marriage after the death of her husband.
She claimed that Gupta had repeatedly promised to marry her but later broke the promise and got engaged to another woman.
She also accused him of extortion, alleging that Gupta demanded ₹50 lakh to prevent the release of a video showing their intimate encounters.
Based on her allegations, the trial court took cognizance of offences under Section 376 (rape) and Section 386 (extortion) of the IPC.
However, the accused moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking to quash the charge sheet and the entire criminal proceedings.
He argued that the relationship had been consensual throughout and that the charges of rape and extortion were baseless.
The Court reviewed the facts and observed that the complainant-widow and the accused had maintained a consensual physical relationship for nearly 12-13 years even when the complainant's husband was alive.
The judgment noted that the complainant exerted undue influence over the accused, who was much younger than her and was an employee 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.
It also examined the legal definition of rape under Section 375 of the IPC, which emphasizes that for an act to constitute rape, the woman's consent must be obtained through coercion, threats or under a misconception of fact.
“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 further addressed the extortion allegations under Section 386 IPC.
The complainant had claimed that Gupta threatened to release intimate video clips unless she paid him ₹50 lakh. However, the court found discrepancies in her testimony and the evidence on record.
"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.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Naim Ahamed v. State of Haryana, the High Court reiterated that it would be a folly to treat every breach of promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC.
Accordingly, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against Shrey Gupta, holding that the allegations did not meet the legal standards required for charges of rape or extortion.
Senior Advocate VP Srivastava along with advocates Vijit Saxena and Irfan Hasan appeared on behalf of the accused.
Advocate Jagdev Singh represented the alleged victim, while Additional Government Advocate Mohd. Shoaib Khan appeared for the State.
[Read Judgment]