Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Uttaranchal High Court: While considering a criminal application, filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), seeking quashment of the charge-sheet, summoning order, and criminal proceedings in an alleged rape case arising from an alleged false promise of marriage, a Single Judge Bench of Siddhartha Sah, J., held that a consensual physical relationship between adults who met through the dating app Tinder does not constitute rape merely because the relationship subsequently did not culminate in marriage.
Background
In the present case, the victim-Respondent 2 had lodged an FIR on 9 March 2021 alleging that in August 2019, she met the applicant, through a dating app called “Tinder”, and developed a close friendship with him. They started communicating through phone calls and during their friendship, the applicant came to meet her and then they went on a trip.
It was alleged that they went to the hotel where the applicant was staying, and both of them consumed liquor. While both were under intoxication, the applicant allegedly established physical relations with her despite assuring her that he would not commit any wrong.
It was further alleged that subsequently, the applicant continued to maintain physical relations with her on the promise of marriage, however, after the lockdown period, the applicant allegedly started avoiding her and refused to marry her on the ground of his father’s ill health. The victim further alleged that she came to know through Instagram that the applicant had become engaged to someone else, following which she lodged the FIR.
Based on the material collected during the investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant under Section 376, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and thereafter, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued a summoning order.
Aggrieved, the applicant approached the High Court contending that the relationship was consensual.
It is worth noting that the applicant had earlier approached the Court and an interim relief was granted to him having regard to the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC, which indicated that she was a consenting party to the relationship.
Analysis and Decision
The Court referred to Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of W.B., (2025) 5 SCC 749 and Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528 and stated that the victim was a mature person who, out of her own free will and accord, entered into a physical relationship with the applicant. The Court further opined that “if subsequently, the relationship turns sour and did not culminate in marriage, that by itself cannot be a ground to term the relationship between the parties as one involving physical relationship on the false pretext of marriage”.
Further, the Court stated that the relationship between the parties continued for a considerable time period, and the parties were frequently meeting so much so that the applicant used to visit the victim coming all the way every second and fourth Saturday.
Considering the applicant’s argument that he and the victim met each other through the Tinder app, which is not a matrimonial site, but is a popular site among youngsters, and the said website is meant for making friends, the Court observed that the victim entered into a physical relationship with the applicant out of her own free will.
The applicant also pointed to an unexplained delay of roughly one year and seven months between the alleged refusal to marry and the filing of the FIR, the absence of any specific dates for the alleged incidents in the FIR itself, and the lack of medical corroboration, since the victim had declined an internal examination.
The Court clarified that the matter did not appear to be a case of entering into physical relationship on the false pretext of marriage. Thus, the Court held that the further continuation of the proceedings under Section 376 IPC against the applicant would amount to an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the application at hand.
[Ankush Sehgal v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Misc. Application No. 1248 of 2022, decided on 16-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Joshi, AGA, M.C. Bhatt, Brief Holder and Rajendra Arya, legal Aid Counsel
