Headline
Allahabad High Court stated that a promise of marriage does not automatically make consensual intercourse as rape.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court in Shrey Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Another quashed rape and extortion charges stating that a consensual physical relationship made on promise of marriage cannot be considered as rape unless fraud existed from the start. Justice Anish Kumar Gupta observed that not every marriage promise breach is said as rape under Section 375 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Key Facts
- Case Name: Shrey Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Another
- Judge Name: Justice Anish Kumar Gupta
- Charges: Rape (Section 376 IPC) and Extortion (Section 386 IPC)
- Allegations made by the widow that Shrey Gupta promised marriage and later got engaged to another woman, and demanded ₹50 lakh to suppress private videos.
- Relationship was consensual for 12-13 years, including when the husband of the complainant was alive. No evidence of coercion, false promise, or extortion was found.
Legal Insights
The Allahabad High Court stresses that not every failed marriage promise is said to be as rape unless the promise was fake from the starting. It stated Naim Ahamed v. State of Haryana to support the case. But the absence of video or weapon evidence weakened the claim of extortion.
Impact
The ruling focuses that long-standing consensual physical relationships cannot be retroactively tagged as rape without proper proof of deception or coercion.
Why It Matters
This case narrows the interpretation of “misconception of fact” under Section 375 of Indian Penal Code ( IPC), balancing the protection of consent with stopping the misuse of laws of rape.
Source:
