Allowing two connected criminal appeals, a bench of Justice Santosh Rai discharged the accused (Saurabh Pal Singh) of all charges under Sections 376, 420, 406, 504, and 506 of the IPC, as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Court thus set aside the orders of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj, which had rejected his discharge application and formally framed charges against him.

Case Background

Briefly put, an FIR was lodged in October 2020 by the informant, a Scheduled Caste woman pursuing her PhD at Allahabad University. She alleged that the accused developed a close relationship with her, promised to marry her, and on that false assurance established physical relations with her over a long period.

The informant further alleged that the accused took her ATM card, scholarship money, jewellery, and Rs. 15,00,000 on the pretext of starting a restaurant business.

She further claimed that after his business was established, he refused to marry her, stopped communicating, and his wife and family members threatened her with dire consequences and intentionally insulted her using caste-indicative slurs.

It was further alleged that though he gave her two cheques for Rs. 5,00,000 each, they were dishonoured.

Following the submission of a chargesheet, the accused moved a discharge plea under Section 227 CrPC before the trial court; however, the same was rejected.

Therefore, he moved the High Court, contending that the material on record, even if taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety, did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences charged.

High Court's Observations

Perusing the FIR, the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, and other documentary evidence, the High Court found glaring infirmities in the prosecution's case.

The bench noted that in her statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, the informant admitted that there was no romantic relationship between her and the appellant, but physical relations were established because they were friends/acquaintances.

Furthermore, the Court noted that her earlier statement under Section 161 CrPC indicated the physical relationship dated back to 2014.

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgments in the cases of Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana 2013, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra 2019 and Yedla Srinivasa Rao v. State of AP 2006, the bench reiterated that to prosecute a person for rape on the ground of a false promise of marriage, it must be established that the promise was false at the time it was given and made in bad faith.

"Absent of any specific averment of inducement by a false promise made in bad faith from the outset, and absent any specific date, time or circumstance of the alleged act regarding committing the rape by appellant in the FIR and statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before the judicial magistrate. The essential ingredients of Section 376 IPC, as explained in the decisions referred to above, are not made out even on a prima facie appraisal of the material as it stands", the Bench observed.

The bench also addressed the financial allegations levelled by the informant and noted that the woman herself stated that the Rs. 15,00,000 was given specifically for running a business.

The Bench observed that a subsequent failure to keep a promise does not translate a civil transaction into the criminal offence of cheating.

The Court further noted that despite the alleged dishonour of two high-value cheques, the informant never initiated proceedings under Section 138 NI Act nor did she file any suit for recovery before a competent court.

"Admittedly, no reliable material has been brought on record regarding the particulars of the cheques or the bank's endorsement showing their dishonour. The reason why the victim did not initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act also remains unexplained", the bench remarked.

The Court also clarified that an offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out merely because the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The prosecution must demonstrate that the offence was committed specifically on the ground of the victim's caste identity. The Court found no material on record indicating any caste-based intent or nexus.

Therefore, concluding that the trial court had acted mechanically and without proper application of the judicial mind in rejecting the discharge application, the High Court held that the materials collected during the investigation fell far short of disclosing a prima facie case.

"The record, on the contrary, indicates that the dispute is predominantly civil and financial in nature and that the allegations of rape on the basis of a false promise of marriage are not prima facie borne out from the material available", the Court observed as it allowed the petitions.

Case Title - Saurabh Pal Singh vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 403

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 403

Click here To Read/Download Judgment