Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Termed Rape: Allahabad HC Quashes Criminal Proceedings Case Analysis 2026

EduLaw EditorialLandmark Judgements2026-06-23

The Allahabad High Court flagged the "growing trend" of consensual relationships being criminalized after breakups and quashed rape proceedings, holding that where consent is voluntary and free from coercion, Section 376 IPC cannot be invoked merely because a relationship ends without marriage. Title: Consensual Relationship Between Adults Cannot Be Branded as Rape: Allahabad High Court Flags Growing Misuse of Criminal Law Case Name: Sanjay @ Sanjay Kashyap vs. State of U.P. and Another Case Number: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 29363 of 2025 Court: Allahabad High Court Judge: Hon'ble Justice Vivek Kumar Singh Judgment Date: May 20, 2026 Citation: 2026:AHC:116590 ABSTRACT In a judgment that carries far-reaching implications for criminal jurisprudence in India, the Allahabad High Court quashed the chargesheet, cognizance order, and the entire criminal proceedings against a man accused of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the alleged false promise of marriage. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, delivering the judgment on May 20, 2026, held that where a man and a woman maintain a consensual relationship as adults, and the FIR is lodged only after the relationship turns sour, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to gross misuse of criminal jurisdiction and an abuse of the process of law. The Court extensively relied upon a catena of Supreme Court judgments, including Samadhan vs. State of Maharashtra (2025) , Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) , Rajnish Singh @ Soni vs. State of U.P. (2025) , and Pramod Kumar Navratna vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2026) , to emphasize that the offence of rape must be reserved exclusively for cases involving genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent — and that criminalizing every broken relationship trivializes the gravest offences known to criminal law. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction and Context II. Factual Background of the Case III. Contentions of the Parties IV. Legal Framework: Consent, False Promise, and Breach of Promise V. The Court's Reasoning and Analysis VI. Key Supreme Court Precedents Relied Upon VII. Ratio Decidendi and Final Order VIII. Critical Observations and Broader Implications I. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT The criminalization of consensual adult relationships following their breakdown has emerged as one of the most debated issues in Indian criminal law. Courts across the country have repeatedly encountered situations where women lodge FIRs under Section 376 IPC (or its replacement under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ) alleging rape on the false promise of marriage — not after any act of violence, but after the relationship deteriorates or the man declines to marry. The Allahabad High Court's judgment in Sanjay @ Sanjay Kashyap vs. State of U.P. and Another arrives at a time when Indian judiciary is grappling with the difficult task of distinguishing genuine cases of sexual exploitation from instances where criminal law is weaponized to settle personal scores or coerce reluctant partners into marriage. The judgment was delivered by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — the successor provision to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — which vests the High Court with inherent power to quash proceedings that constitute an abuse of the process of any court or that are otherwise necessary to secure the ends of justice. The case arose from Case Crime No. 238 of 2024, registered under Sections 376, 323, 342, and 506 of the IPC at Police Station Pipraich in Gorakhpur district. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE The FIR in this case was registered on March 30, 2024, by the complainant (opposite party no. 2/victim), who alleged that she had met the applicant (Sanjay @ Sanjay Kashyap) approximately one year earlier at a marriage ceremony. According to her version, the applicant purchased a mobile phone and gifted it to her, after which they began communicating regularly. She claimed that the applicant made a promise of marriage before her family members, and on the basis of that promise, they developed physical intimacy. When the complainant pressurized the applicant to fulfill his promise of marriage, he allegedly made excuses and later threatened to kill her. She further claimed that on March 26, 2024, when she visited the applicant's house, he physically assaulted her and ultimately declined to marry her. Notably, the FIR did not specify the date, time, or place where the alleged offence of rape was first committed. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. , the complainant described herself as approximately 20 years of age and educated up to Class 9. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, she stated that she had been in a relationship with the applicant for one year and that on May 30, 2023, the applicant took her to a friend's house and forcibly established physical relations.