Breakups turning into FIRs: Allahabad HC on trend of filing rape cases after uncommitted sexual relationships

The Allahabad High Court has voiced concern over the growing tendency to criminalize personal disputes, especially in the aftermath of intimate relationships that end on a bitter note. While granting bail to a 42-year-old man accused of rape, the Court remarked that not every relationship fallout should translate into a criminal case. Justice Krishan Pahal, who passed the order on April 9, pointed out a noticeable pattern where emotional distress following breakups is increasingly being addressed through the legal system, particularly by invoking penal provisions. In this case, the woman alleged that the accused, after promising marriage, sexually exploited her, recorded the act, and later used it to blackmail her. The FIR also mentioned that the man had concealed his marital history. However, the defense countered that the relationship was mutual and consensual, involving two adults who willingly spent time together. The accused acknowledged being married but denied claims of multiple past marriages. The defense further argued that while the situation may raise moral questions, it does not necessarily meet the threshold for criminal prosecution.

The complainant’s lawyer, however, described the accused as a habitual offender in relationships, alleging that he had used his financial influence to take advantage of the woman and others. The prosecution maintained that he had been previously married more than once and had children from each of those relationships. The Court acknowledged that the woman was aware of the man’s previous marital status when she chose to enter the relationship. It noted that while such a relationship may not conform to conventional norms, it was, at the time, consensual. Commenting on the broader implications, the Court said the matter reflects a shift in how modern relationships are viewed, with traditional notions of commitment often taking a backseat. This, it observed, has led to legal complaints being filed more as a response to emotional distress than genuine legal violations. The Court also emphasized that not every act considered morally or socially inappropriate amounts to a criminal offense. It added that the legal system cannot be expected to resolve all matters of personal morality. Taking into account the delay in filing the FIR—around five months—the removal of certain serious charges like Sections 313 and 377 of the IPC, and the fact that the complainant is an educated adult, the Court granted bail to the accused. The accused was represented by Senior Advocate Anup Triwedi and advocate Nitin Chandra Mishra. Advocate Devendra Singh appeared for the complainant, while the State was represented by advocate Sunil Kumar.