The Allahabad High Court has observed that the emotional fallout of failed intimate relationships is increasingly being given a criminal color, often resulting in the misuse of penal provisions.

Justice Krishan Pahal made this observation while granting bail to a 42-year-old man accused of rape, in the case Arun Kumar Mishra v. State of UP. In his April 9 order, the judge noted a growing trend where personal disputes and emotional discord are being criminalized, especially after the breakdown of romantic relationships.

“It is increasingly observed that personal fallouts and emotional discord are being given a criminal colour, through the invocation of penal laws, particularly in the aftermath of failed intimate relationships,” the Court stated.

The judge emphasized the need to recognize the evolving nature of modern relationships and the shifting societal norms regarding intimacy and commitment.

“The victim, with full and conscious knowledge of the applicant's previous marital history—having been married thrice before—chose to establish a corporeal relationship with him. This relationship, while mutual and consensual during its subsistence, did not conform to the traditionally accepted institution of marriage or any form of legally recognized union,” the Court noted.

The relationship involved two consenting adults—the alleged victim aged about 25 and the accused aged 42. The Court remarked that while the emotional aspects of the relationship may not fit within conventional frameworks, the consensual nature of the association could not be ignored.

The Court further reflected on the broader societal trend:

“The prevalence of transient and uncommitted relationships, often formed and dissolved at will, raises critical questions about individual responsibility and the misuse of legal provisions, especially when such relationships turn sour.”

Background of the Case

The accused had been booked last year based on a complaint by the woman, who alleged that he raped her, recorded the act, and later used the video to blackmail her. She also claimed that he had promised to marry her but later reneged on the commitment.

However, the defense argued that the relationship was consensual, and the woman had accompanied the accused to various locations. While the accused admitted to being currently married, he denied having had three previous marriages.

His counsel contended:

“The instant case may fall within the category of immorality, but it cannot be termed as penal... it does not necessarily violate any law that prescribes a legal punishment.”

In contrast, counsel for the complainant described the accused as a habitual seducer who used his wealth and status to manipulate women. The State informed the Court that two additional women had given statements supporting the claim that the accused had multiple marriages and children from each.

Despite these allegations, the Court found that the case appeared to be more a product of post-breakup emotional distress than of a genuine criminal offence.

“The timing and circumstances surrounding the filing of the complaint suggest a retaliatory motive rather than a genuine pursuit of justice,” the Court noted, adding that, “Not all socially or ethically questionable actions warrant legal intervention... The law does not enforce all aspects of morality.”

Taking into account the delay in filing the FIR (about five months), the consensual nature of the relationship, the deletion of Sections 313 and 377 IPC, and the qualifications of the complainant, the Court granted bail to the accused.

“Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed,” the Court concluded.

Representation:

• For the accused: Senior Advocate Anup Triwedi and Advocate Nitin Chandra Mishra

• For the complainant: Advocate Devendra Singh

• For the State: Advocate Sunil Kumar