Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Criminalised as Rape on Mere Allegations of Blackmail: Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC
Case Name: Anil Sharma v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Others
Date of Judgment: 20.03.2026
Citation: CRM-M-1885-2021
Bench: Justice N.S. Shekhawat
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a prolonged consensual relationship between two adults cannot be construed as rape in the absence of evidence of coercion, threat, or consent obtained under misconception of fact. Mere allegations of blackmail, unsupported by evidence, are insufficient to attract the offence under Section 376 IPC.
Summary: The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR registered under Section 376(2) IPC on allegations of rape, blackmail, and exploitation of a married woman. The FIR was lodged by the husband of the prosecutrix, alleging that the petitioner, a skating coach, had developed acquaintance with the family and later established physical relations with the prosecutrix by coercion and blackmail.
The factual matrix revealed that both the petitioner and the prosecutrix were married individuals, known to each other for a considerable period, and their families shared close relations. The prosecutrix, a qualified dentist and a mature adult, was alleged to have engaged in a physical relationship with the petitioner over a prolonged period. The complaint surfaced only after the husband discovered certain aspects of her personal life, including an undisclosed abortion.
The petitioner contended that the relationship was entirely consensual and that there was no material to substantiate allegations of rape or blackmail. It was pointed out that the prosecutrix had voluntarily met the petitioner, maintained frequent communication, and even stayed with him at a hotel, which was reflected in documentary evidence. It was further highlighted that no incriminating digital or electronic evidence was found during investigation to support allegations of coercion or blackmail.
The State, while opposing the petition, conceded that no audio, video, or digital material had been recovered to establish blackmail. The Court also noted that the prosecutrix had declined internal medical examination and that the allegations were largely based on subsequent statements made after confrontation by her husband.
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the concept of “consent” under Sections 375 and 90 IPC and relied on recent Supreme Court jurisprudence distinguishing between consensual relationships and sexual acts induced by misconception of fact. It reiterated that consent must involve an active and reasoned decision, and that a false promise or coercion must be clearly established to vitiate such consent.
On facts, the Court found that the prosecutrix was a well-educated, mature individual who had continued the relationship over a significant period without complaint. The absence of any immediate protest, lack of supporting evidence of blackmail, and the surrounding circumstances indicated that the relationship was consensual rather than forced. The Court observed that the allegations appeared to have emerged only after matrimonial discord surfaced between the prosecutrix and her husband.
Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR under Section 376(2) IPC and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner.
The Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of law, as the essential ingredients of rape were not made out. It emphasized that criminal law cannot be invoked to penalize consensual relationships between adults in the absence of clear evidence of coercion or deception.