The Supreme Court on Monday quashed a rape case against a man who was accused by the complainant of sexual exploitation after 16 years of relationship with him [Rajnish Singh @ Soni v State of UP and Anr]..The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said the prolonged period of 16 years was sufficient to conclude there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship. The Court also rejected the allegation that sexual relationship was established due to a false promise of marriage.“It is clear that the complainant, being a highly qualified major woman continued in a consensual intimate sexual relationship with the appellant over a period of 16 years. At some point in time, the relationship went sour leading to the filing of the FIR. No reasonable man would accept the version that the complainant allowed the accused to establish sexual relations with her over a period of 16 years purely under the misconception of marriage,” the Court said..The woman had alleged that she was raped by the accused in 2006 inside her own house but remained quiet after the accused promised to marry her. She also claimed that the accused video-graphed their sexual acts in 2009 after intoxicating her.She also said the accused forced her to abort a pregnancy once. She further alleged that he would take money from her after threatening to make the video viral. The complainant finally approached the police in 2022 after the accused married another woman..Seeking quashing of the case, the accused told the top court that the relationship was consensual. However, the State and the complainant submitted that he had made a false assurance of marriage and then sexually exploited her..The Court at the outset trashed the allegation of rape in 2006 and said it was difficult to accept that a well-qualified major woman was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by an outsider in her own house.The complainant’s allegations seem to be a well-orchestrated story and nothing beyond that, it said.“It needs to be highlighted that the complainant categorically came out with a case in the FIR that the first act of sexual relation between her and the appellant (albeit forcible as per the complainant) took place in her own house where her parents were also present. The very manner in which this incident is said to have taken place, puts the case of the complainant under serious doubt.”.The Court also expressed doubt over the allegation that after over three years of sexual relationship, the accused spiked her drink to establish sexual relations.“It does not stand to reason that when the intimate relations were continuing between the parties without any hitch for more than three years, then why would the appellant be impelled to take the trouble of spiking the drink of the complainant in order to establish sexual relations with her.” It further noted that the accused and complainant were posted at different places and sometimes he would visit her at her place and sometimes she would meet him at his place.“It is almost impossible to swallow the version of the complainant that for the entire period of 16 years, she unreservedly allowed the appellant to subject her to repeated acts of sexual intercourse under the impression that the accused would on someday act upon his promise of marriage,” the Court observed..The Court further said the accused and complainant were residing in different towns and there was no pressure upon her which could have prevented her from filing a police complaint against the accused.It also found that she on many occasions portrayed herself to be his wife, thus “dispelling the allegation” that his intention was to cheat her right from the inception of the relationship.“We cannot remain oblivious to the fact that it was mostly the complainant who used to travel to meet the appellant at his place of posting. Therefore, we are convinced that the relationship between the complainant and appellant was consensual without the existence of any element of deceit or misconception,” it added..The Court concluded that the case was lodged only when the complainant came to know that the accused was marrying another woman. The long gap of 16 years between the first act of sexual intercourse and the filing of the FIR convinces us that it is a clear case of a love affair gone sour, the Court said.“Thus, by no stretch of imagination, can this Court be convinced that present is a case wherein the appellant is liable to be prosecuted for having sexually exploited/assaulted the complainant based on a false promise of marriage. The allegations of the complainant are full of material contradictions and are ex facie unbelievable,” it held while quashing the FIR..Advocates Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Anjale Kumari, Gopal Singh, Vishal Thakre, Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Ashwani Garg, Tota Ram and Sanjeev Malhotra represented the petitioner.Advocates Ankit Goel, Vikas Bansal, Harshit Singhal, Nitin Meshram, Saurabh Singh, Rishi Raj Singh and Ranbir Singh Yadav represented the respondents..[Read Judgment]
