The Allahabad High Court has raised serious concerns over the growing trend of criminalizing failed relationships, especially through the misuse of rape allegations following consensual and uncommitted sexual relationships. In a significant bail order passed on April 9 in Arun Kumar Mishra v. State of UP, the Court emphasized that not every socially or ethically questionable action warrants legal intervention.
Justice Krishan Pahal, while granting bail to a 42-year-old man accused of rape, noted,
“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 pointed to a broader societal shift in the nature of relationships, stating that
“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.”
According to the prosecution, the accused had allegedly raped the woman, recorded the act on video, and later used it to blackmail her. It was also claimed that he promised to marry her but eventually backed out. The complainant described the accused as a “Casanova” who used his wealth and influence to exploit women. The Investigating Officer recorded statements from two other women who also alleged marriage-like relationships with the accused.
However, the defense argued that the relationship between the accused and the complainant was consensual and mutual. It was further submitted that the complainant was aware of the accused’s previous marital history and continued the relationship nonetheless.
“The instant case may fall within the category of immorality, but it cannot be termed as penal,” the defense contended, arguing that the alleged conduct, though possibly unethical, did not constitute a criminal offence.
Justice Pahal echoed this sentiment in the order, observing:
“The victim, with full and conscious knowledge of the applicant’s previous marital history… chose to establish a corporeal relationship with him… While the emotional and romantic dynamics may not appear traditionally polyamorous, the relationship is consensual and involves two mature individuals.”
The Court questioned the timing and delay in filing the complaint—approximately five months after the breakup—suggesting that the FIR may have been driven more by emotional retaliation than a genuine pursuit of justice.
“The criminal case, instituted after the breakup, appears to be a product of an emotional aftermath rather than a bona fide grievance of criminal wrongdoing,” the Court noted.
Reinforcing the boundary between law and morality, the Court remarked:
“Not all socially or ethically questionable actions warrant legal intervention. It also reflects a foundational principle in jurisprudence — the law does not enforce all aspects of morality.”
Taking into account the mutual nature of the relationship, the qualifications of the complainant, the delay in filing the FIR, and the deletion of serious charges under Sections 313 and 377 IPC, the Court concluded that a case for bail had been made out.
“The bail application is allowed,” the order stated.
This judgment comes amid growing judicial scrutiny over the weaponization of criminal law in personal disputes, particularly involving intimate relationships.
Case: Arun Kumar Mishra vs State of UP – Available on LAWFYI.IO
