Allahabad HC Discharges Congress MP Rakesh Rathore in Sitapur Rape Case

The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench has discharged Congress MP Rakesh Rathore in a rape case registered in Sitapur, observing that the prosecution material indicated a long-standing consensual relationship between him and the complainant.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, in an order passed on Friday, said the allegation that Rathore had established a physical relationship with the complainant on the promise of marrying her did not, prima facie, raise a strong suspicion of the alleged offence.

The court noted that the complainant had stated that she met Rathore during public meetings, after which he offered her political patronage and an alliance. She accepted the offer and was subsequently appointed district women president of the Tailik Mahasangh.

The court also referred to the statement of the complainant’s husband, who said Rathore frequently called her to his residence and that she sometimes remained there until late at night.

In these circumstances, the court said the prosecution material indicated a long-standing consensual extramarital relationship between two married and mature adults. It found this contrary to the allegation that the relationship had been established on a promise of marriage.

It observed that the prosecution material presented a version of events which, in its view, could not be believed by a person of ordinary prudence and therefore did not create a strong suspicion that Rathore had committed the alleged offence.

The complainant had lodged an FIR at Kotwali police station in Sitapur in January 2025, alleging that Rathore had raped her in 2020 and subsequently established a relationship with her after assuring her that he would divorce his wife and marry her.

A case was registered against Rathore under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court rejected his discharge application and subsequently framed charges.

The High Court set aside the trial court’s May 5, 2025 order and allowed Rathore’s discharge application. It also held that framing of charges did not take away its revisional jurisdiction to examine the legality of the proceedings in question.