The Allahabad High Court has discharged Congress MP from Sitapur, Rakesh Rathore, in a 2025 rape case, observing that the story "cooked up" by the complainant is so 'absurd' that it cannot be believed by any person of ordinary prudence.

The Court added that the prosecution material indicated a "long term consensual extra-marital relationship between two married persons of matured ages".

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi allowed Rathore's criminal revision and set aside the trial court's order rejecting his discharge application. The Court consequently discharged him from charges under Sections 64(2), 69, 351(3) and 127(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Case in brief

According to the prosecution case, the complainant alleged that she came in contact with Rathore in 2018 when he was a Member of the Legislative Assembly.

She alleged that Rathore offered her political protection and an alliance and subsequently got her appointed as District Chairperson-Women of the Tailik Mahasangh, Sitapur.

The complainant alleged that intimacy developed between them and that Rathore raped her at his house in March 2020. She further alleged that he subsequently established physical relations with her repeatedly on the promise that he would divorce his wife and make her his life partner.

She also alleged that after Rathore became an MP in 2024, he called her to his house, forcibly made her sign blank papers and threatened to defame her if she did not live as his concubine.

The complainant, aged about 49 years, underwent medico-legal examination on January 17, 2025.

The medical report recorded “no signs of use of force” and no recent forceful penetration injury, although sexual violence could not be ruled out.

During the investigation, police also seized a mobile phone containing an audio recording of a conversation between the complainant and Rathore dated August 26, 2024.

The transcript showed the complainant referring to their physical relationship of about 5 years and stating that Rathore had promised to marry her. She asked him to divorce his wife and keep her as his wife.

An FSL report subsequently stated that the voice in the recording was Rathore's.

Rathore sought discharge before the trial court, contending that the material collected during investigation itself demonstrated that the relationship was consensual.

The trial court rejected his application on May 5, 2025 and subsequently framed charges on May 16, 2025.

High Court's observations

The High Court reiterated that, at the stage of discharge, the Court has to examine whether the material collected during investigation, taken at face value, discloses the ingredients of the alleged offences and whether there is sufficient ground to proceed.

At the same time, the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or undertake a roving inquiry into the evidence at that stage.

Examining the material, the Court noted that both Rathore and the complainant were married and had grown-up children. It also considered the complainant's account of having come into contact with Rathore through political activities and accepting his offer of political protection and alliance.

The Bench also considered inconsistencies between the allegations made in the FIR and statements during investigation and material recorded during the medical examination.

The Court observed that the allegation that the complainant had been sexually exploited under an assurance of marriage, while she herself was married, was a story "so absurd that it cannot be believed by any person of ordinary prudence".

The Court then considered the material regarding the nature and duration of the relationship.

It referred to statements indicating that Rathore and the complainant had known each other for several years and that he frequently called her to his residence. The Bench noted thus:

“These statements indicate a long term consensual extra-marital relationship between two married persons of matured ages and it belies the allegation of rape under allurement of marriage".

The Court also considered Supreme Court judgments concerning consensual relationships and allegations involving a promise of marriage.

After examining the material, the High Court observed that the prosecution material indicated that the complainant had “cooked up a story which no reasonable person of ordinary prudence can believe”.

The Court held that the material collected during investigation did not give rise to a strong suspicion that Rathore had committed the alleged offences.

It further observed that the continuation of criminal proceedings based on "frivolous and self-contradictory allegations" would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in a failure of justice.

The High Court rejected the argument that it could not interfere because the trial court had subsequently framed charges.

It held that the subsequent framing of charges did not deprive it of jurisdiction to examine the validity of the earlier discharge order.

The Court also observed that the trial court had been informed that Rathore had already approached the High Court and that the revision was likely to be taken up shortly. In these circumstances, it said “judicial propriety demanded” that the trial court should not have proceeded hastily to frame charges.

The High Court accordingly allowed Rathore's criminal revision, set aside the trial court's order rejecting discharge and discharged him from all charges.

Counsel for Revisionist(s): Nadeem Murtaza, Arun Sinha, Purnendu Chakravarty, Siddhartha Sinha, Wali Nawaz Khan

Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Abhilasha Rastogi, Priyanka Singh

Case Title - Rakesh Rathore vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home Lko and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 762

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 762

Click Here To Read/Download Order