Km. Neha v. Pradeep Singh Patel)
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4743 of 2024 Km Neha @ Neha Anuragi State of U.P. and Another Versus .....Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bhaskar Bhadra, Rajveer Chaurasiya : G.A., Sunil Choudhary Court No. - 68 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
Legal Reasoning
couple. In our view, if two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences. Therefore, the allegation that such relationship was entered because there was a promise of marriage is in the circumstances unworthy of acceptance, particularly, when there is no allegation that such physical relationship would not have been established had there been no promise to marry. 15. Moreover, in a long drawn live-in relationship, occasions may arise where parties in that relationship express their desire or wish to formalize the same by a seal of marriage, but that expression of desire, or wish, by itself would not be indicative of relationship being a consequence of that expression of desire or wish. A decade or two earlier, live-in relationships might not have been common. But now more and more women are financially independent and have the capacity to take conscious decision of charting their life on their own terms. This financial freedom, inter alia, has led to proliferation of such live-in relationships. Therefore, when a matter of this nature comes to a court, it must not adopt a pedantic approach rather the Court may, based on the length of such relationship and conduct of the parties, presume implied consent of the parties to be in such a relationship regardless of their desire or a wish to convert it into a marital bond." 9. Similarly, the Apex Court again in the case of Kunal Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal; SLP (Criminal) No. 7004 of 2025 again observed that promise to marry and subsequent relationship between the two with consent would not amount to rape. 4 CRLR No. 4743 of 2024 10. In view of the above fact as well as legal position mentioned herein above, it is clear that merely on refusal to get married, subsequent to a consensual physical relationship with applicant for four years would not constitute a cognizable offence under I.P.C. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the present application, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. September 8, 2025 Vandana (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Bhaskar Bhadra, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Sunil Choudhary, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant revision has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated 17.8.2024 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Mahoba in Complaint Case No. 32 of 2024 (Km. Neha vs. Pradeep Singh Patel). 3. Facts giving rise to the present case are that the applicant had filed a complaint, making allegation against opposite party No.2 that opposite party No.2 initially established physical relationship with her by administering sedative in cold drink and subsequently he kept on making physical relationship on the pretext of marriage. However, after four years opposite party No.2 refused to get married to the applicant on the ground that she belonged to Scheduled Caste and his family members would not accept their marriage. In support of her complaint, the applicant got examined herself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as Ram Kumar and Dinesh Kumar under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as PW-1 and PW-2, respectively. The trial court after considering the allegations made in the complaint as well as statements of the witnesses, rejected the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on 17.8.2024. 4. Counsel for applicant submitted that the trial court has failed to consider that there were specific allegations of committing rape by the opposite party No.2 at the first instance and then he kept on making physical relationship 2 CRLR No. 4743 of 2024 on false promise of marriage and subsequently refused to get married to the applicant. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has submitted that from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 as well as the statement of the applicant, it is clear that the applicant and opposite party No.2 were in a relationship and initially they were also ready to get married. Subsequently, because of certain reasons opposite party No.2 backed out of a promise to marry the applicant and a complaint was also made by the applicant to Sub Divisional Magistrate and other departmental officers. Subsequently, both the parties also settled their dispute before department officials. Therefore, no cognizable offence is made out against opposite party No.2. 6. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that it is not in dispute that the applicant and opposite party No.2 were in relationship, but opposite party No.2 after keeping long relationship with the applicant backed out from his promise to get married to the applicant. Therefore, the complaint was rightly rejected. 7. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is not in dispute that the applicant and opposite party No.2 were in relationship for four years and this fact was known to all employees as well as officials of Tehsil. Subsequently, on refusal by opposite party No.2 to get married to the applicant, the applicant made a complaint to the Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as to police. However, during enquiry by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and also by the police officers on the complaint made by the applicant, both the parties settled their dispute and applicant decided not to pursue the case. However, the report of Tehsildar dated 8.1.2024 also shows that there was consensual relationship between the parties and applicant herself requested to withdraw her complaint against opposite party No.2. Though there is allegation that initially physical relationship was made by opposite party No.2 with the applicant by playing trick and subsequently, he assured the applicant for marriage, it is also not in dispute that the applicant remained in relationship with opposite party No.2 for a considerably long time. This fact shows that it was a case of consensual relationship between the applicant and opposite party No.2 and thereafter their relationship fell apart due to refusal of opposite party No.2 to get married to the applicant. 3 CRLR No. 4743 of 2024 8. The Apex Court in the case of Ravish Singh Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1055, observed that if two able minded adults reside together for a couple of years and cohabit with each other, then a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose their consensual relationship, being fully aware of its consequences and subsequently backing out of one party from fulfilling his/her promise of marriage would not attract any offence. Paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 of the judgement Ravi Singh Rana (supra) is quoted as under:- "14. In the instant case also, we find that the relationship between the appellant and the second respondent (the informant) was spread over two years. Further, they not only admit of having physical relations with each other but also of living together in a rented accommodation as a live-in