A Married Advocate Cannot Claim Rape on Promise of Marriage: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes FIR Against Defence Lawyer

“When a mature, married woman practising law chooses to enter into a consensual relationship, she cannot later invoke the penal code to allege rape on a false promise of marriage” — with these sharp words, the Punjab & Haryana High Court quashing rape and intimidation charges against a lawyer accused by his former client.

Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal observed that "a consensual relationship turning sour cannot be stretched to attract the offence of rape", especially when the prosecutrix is a married, educated, and practising lawyer who knowingly engaged in a sexual relationship with her legal counsel. However, the court refused to quash proceedings under Section 67A of the IT Act, holding that transmission of sexually explicit material to a third party attracts prosecution under the cyber law framework.

“Reckless Disregard of Marriage Is Not Rape”: High Court Slams Abuse of Criminal Law After Relationship FalloutDelivering a pivotal verdict that cuts through emotionally charged allegations and underscores the distinction between consensual adult relationships and criminal conduct, the Punjab & Haryana High Court partially allowed the petition filed by Advocate Sanjeet Kumar, quashing rape (Section 376(2)(n) IPC) and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC) charges, as well as allegations under Section 180 IPC, citing lack of ingredients, inherent improbability, and malicious prosecution.

However, the Court held that trial would continue under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as the petitioner was accused of sending explicit images to the complainant's husband, thereby transmitting obscene material beyond a private context.

The petitioner, Advocate Sanjeet Kumar, was representing the prosecutrix in a dowry harassment case filed against her husband. The prosecutrix, herself a practising Advocate, filed an FIR on 22 November 2020, alleging that the petitioner developed a sexual relationship with her under a promise of marriage, later reneged, and shared explicit messages and images with her estranged husband.

Her complaint was sweeping — implicating her own father, mother, brother, sister, husband, a Mahant (godman), and the petitioner — alleging that they conspired to assassinate her character, ruin her career, and push her towards suicide. However, after investigation, the charge sheet was filed solely against Sanjeet Kumar under Sections 376(2)(n), 180, 506 IPC and 67A of the IT Act, as the rest of the allegations were found to be baseless.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the FIR and chargesheet, terming the case a classic abuse of criminal law driven by emotional retribution and not legal substance.

At the core of the case were three legal questions — whether the sexual relationship constituted rape, whether threats amounted to criminal intimidation, and whether private messages between adults could amount to a cybercrime.

Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal made crucial findings.

The Court noted that the prosecutrix was 35 years old, a practising lawyer, and had an eight-year-old child. She was fully aware that she was legally married — her divorce proceedings were still sub judice, and the High Court had stayed the divorce decree until 11 December 2020. Despite this, she voluntarily engaged in a long-term relationship with the petitioner, a fellow lawyer.

The Court stated:
"Even if it is assumed that the petitioner did promise to marry her, then also no offence is made out. When a fully mature, married woman consents to sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage and continues to so indulge, it is merely a reckless disregard of the institution of marriage, not an act of inducement by misconception of fact."

It rejected the complainant’s improved version recorded under Section 164 CrPC (where she mentioned dates of alleged rape), noting that her initial police complaint had no reference to any specific promise of marriage or rape.

The judgment aligned with several Supreme Court rulings, including Uday v. State of Karnataka, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, and Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), all of which held that mature women engaging in relationships knowingly and willingly cannot later cry rape merely because the relationship did not culminate in marriage.

In another scathing observation, the Court remarked:
“The prosecutrix was mature and seasoned enough to understand the consequences of her acts with the petitioner, which she consented to while her marriage with Ravinder was subsisting.”

On the Section 180 IPC charge (refusal to sign disclosure statement), the Court found it absurd and inherently improbable, especially given that the petitioner is a lawyer with a “legally trained mind”.

Regarding the Section 506 IPC charge (criminal intimidation), the Court found the allegations too vague, devoid of time, place, or actual words. It stated:
“Mere empty threats are not sufficient to constitute the offence... there is nothing in the FIR that the threats caused alarm to the prosecutrix.”

However, on the Section 67A IT Act charge, the Court found sufficient material to proceed. It held:
“Once it was alleged that the obscene pictures and the chats were shared by the petitioner with husband of the prosecutrix, mischief of Section 67A IT Act would be attracted.”

While the petitioner argued that it was a consensual private exchange — protected under privacy principles espoused in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India — the Court declined to decide on that constitutional issue at this stage, stating it was a “debatable issue best examined at trial”.

The Court held that the FIR and chargesheet were liable to be quashed under Sections 376(2)(n), 180, and 506 IPC, citing lack of essential ingredients, absurdity, and malicious prosecution under the Bhajan Lal principles. However, Section 67A IT Act was upheld, and the trial was ordered to proceed on that count.

“Clearly and evidently, the prosecutrix was in a consensual relationship with the petitioner for a period of over one year, during which period she remained married... Her claim that petitioner committed rape is per se false and unacceptable.”

This ruling sends a clear message against the criminalisation of failed romantic or sexual relationships, particularly where both parties are adults and legal professionals. The High Court cautioned that law cannot be used as a weapon of vengeance when personal bonds break, and consensual intimacy cannot be turned into allegations of rape in the absence of deception or coercion.

At the same time, the judgment underscores the seriousness of digital privacy violations, drawing a red line where private messages cross into public domain or third-party communication.

The case represents a nuanced application of criminal law principles, affirming that legal systems must guard against emotional manipulation of statutes meant to protect real victims.

Date of Decision: 17 November 2025