LexRAJNISH SINGH @ SONI versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 303 : 2025 INSC 308 Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 2025) 03 March 2025 [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the liability of the appellant to be prosecuted for committing rape upon the complainant by giving her a false promise of marriage; and the correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of the chargesheet u/ss.376, 384, 323, 504, 506 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376, 384, 323, 504, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Criminal proceeding against the appellant for having sexually exploited/assaulted the complainant for over a period of 16 years, based on a false promise of marriage – Appellant chargesheeted u/ss.376, 384, 323, 504, 506 – Appellant sought quashing of proceedings – Rejected by the High Court – Justification: Held: Accused is not liable for the offence of rape if the victim has wilfully agreed to maintain sexual relations – Complainant’s allegations seem to be well-arranged story – Complainant, being a highly qualified major woman continued unabatedly in a consensual intimate sexual relationship with the appellant over a period of 16 years, which is sufficient to conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship – It cannot be said that the appellant is liable to be prosecuted for having sexually exploited/assaulted the complainant based on a false promise of marriage – Allegations of the complainant are full of material contradictions and are ex facie unbelievable – Throughout the prolonged period of 16 years, the complainant kept completely quiet about the alleged sexual abuse, meted out to her by the appellant until she learnt that the appellant had married another woman – Further in complete contradiction * Author 304 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports to the case setup in the FIR, the complainant has on many occasions portrayed herself to be the wife of the appellant and thus, evidently, they lived together as man and wife – Long gap of 16 years between the first alleged act of sexual intercourse, continued relations for one and a half decade till the filing of the FIR convinces that it is a clear case of a love affair/live in relationship gone sour – Allowing the prosecution of the appellant to continue for the offences alleged, would be nothing short of a gross abuse of the process of law– Impugned order quashed and set aside – Impugned FIR and proceedings arising thereunder quashed. [Paras 21, 24, 25, 27, 35, 37, 39] Case Law Cited Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3471; Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3375; Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana [2013] 6 SCR 544 : (2013) 7 SCC 675; Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka (2019) 18 SCC 204 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Quashing of criminal proceedings; Forcible sexual intercourse; Promise of marriage; Obscene video; Causing miscarriage; Threat of making the obscene video/pictures viral; Forcibly taking money; Agreement of marriage; Relationship between two consenting adults; Love affair subsisting over one and a half decade; Gross abuse of process of law; Physical relationship directly traceable to false promise; Vitiation of consent under misconception of fact; Misconception of marriage; Secret marriage ceremony; Distinction between rape and consensual intercourse; Living together as man and wife; Ex facie unbelievable allegations. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad In A482 No. 43177 of 2022 [2025] 3 S.C.R. 305 Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. and Another Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Dr. Purvish Malkan, Sr. Adv., Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Vishal Thakre, Ms. Anjale Kumari, Ms. Manshu Sharma, Dinesh Satyapal Sehgal, Aditya Yadav, Sanjeev Malhotra. Advs. for the Respondents: Ankit Goel, Vikas Bansal, Harshit Singhal, Nitin Meshram, Saurabh Singh, Rishi Raj Singh, Ranbir Singh Yadav. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Mehta, J. 1. Heard. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appellant herein has preferred the instant appeal by special leave, assailing the order dated
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.