The Allahabad High Court has discharged a man facing trial on charges of rape, cheating, criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation and offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, holding that the material collected during investigation did not disclose sufficient grounds to proceed with the prosecution.
Justice Santosh Rai allowed two connected criminal appeals filed by Saurabh Pal Singh, setting aside the trial court's orders rejecting his discharge application and framing charges. The Court concluded that, even if the prosecution material was accepted at face value, it did not establish a prima facie criminal case.
Background of the Case
The prosecution case arose from an FIR lodged in 2020 by a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste. She alleged that the appellant had developed a close relationship with her, promised to marry her, maintained physical relations over several years, received substantial amounts of money from her, and later refused to marry her. She also alleged that he retained her ATM card, jewellery and scholarship money, issued two cheques that were dishonoured, and threatened her.
Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 376, 420, 406, 504 and 506 of the IPC along with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj rejected the appellant's discharge application and later framed charges, prompting the appeals before the High Court.
Court's Observations
Justice Santosh Rai examined the FIR, the complainant's statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and other material collected during investigation.
The Court found that the complainant's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. did not indicate that the physical relationship was based on a false promise of marriage made from the very beginning. It also noted that no specific date, time or place of the alleged incident had been mentioned.
The Court observed:
“The essential ingredients of Section 376 IPC... are not made out even on a prima facie appraisal of the material as it stands.”
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the High Court reiterated that a failed promise to marry does not automatically amount to rape unless it is shown that the promise was false from its inception and was made solely to obtain consent.
Financial Transactions Viewed as Civil Dispute
The Bench also considered the allegations relating to money allegedly given by the complainant.
According to the record, the complainant herself stated that ₹15 lakh had been advanced for the appellant's business. The Court noted that although two cheques were allegedly dishonoured, no proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act had been initiated, and no reliable material regarding the dishonoured cheques had been placed before the Court.
Justice Rai observed that the available material suggested a financial dispute rather than criminal cheating or criminal breach of trust.
The Court further remarked:
“The record... indicates that the dispute is predominantly civil and financial in nature.”
SC/ST Act Charge Not Sustained
While examining the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the High Court held that merely because the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste would not be sufficient to attract the provision.
The Court found no material indicating that the alleged offences had been committed because of her caste identity.
It observed:
“No prima facie material exists to attract the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.”
Decision
Allowing both criminal appeals, the Allahabad High Court set aside the Special Judge's orders dated November 18, 2024 and January 27, 2026.
The Court discharged Saurabh Pal Singh from offences 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.
It also directed that, if the appellant was on bail, his bail bonds and sureties would stand discharged.
Case Details
Case Title: Saurabh Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another (Connected with Criminal Appeal)
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 769 of 2025 (Connected with Criminal Appeal )
Judge: Justice Santosh Rai
Decision Date: July 6, 2026
-300x169.webp)
