Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Srivastav, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Adv.

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The case involves a dispute over allegations of sexual offenses, including rape, under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act (!) .

2. The appellant, Manish Yadav, is accused of engaging in physical relations with the complainant, who is a major woman working at a Diagnostic Centre, after meeting her on social media (!) (!) .

3. The complainant admitted that she trusted the appellant and had feelings for him, despite her reservations about engaging in physical relations. She also acknowledged that their initial relationship was consensual and not based on any false promise of marriage (!) (!) .

4. The prosecution alleged that the appellant forced himself on the complainant multiple times and made a false promise of marriage to induce her into sexual acts. However, the court found that there was no sufficient evidence to establish that the appellant had no intention of marrying her from the outset or that he made a false promise with fraudulent intent (!) (!) (!) .

5. The court emphasized that consent given by the complainant was voluntary and not under misconception of fact, particularly noting that her act of declining marriage proposal indicates that the appellant did not breach any promise or mislead her under false pretenses (!) (!) (!) .

6. The court also observed that there was no evidence of caste-based abuse or malignment by the appellant, and the allegations under the SC/ST Act were not substantiated (!) .

7. Ultimately, the court concluded that the relationship was consensual between two adults and that the case was a souring of a consensual relationship rather than an act of coercion or deception warranting criminal prosecution (!) (!) .

8. As a result, the order summoning the appellant and proceedings against him under the specified sections were quashed, and the appeal was allowed, indicating that the criminal proceedings were deemed an abuse of process of law (!) (!) .

9. The court highlighted that the prosecution failed to prove essential elements such as non-consent or false promise of marriage, and the evidence did not support the charges under the relevant statutes (!) (!) .

10. The case underscores that consensual sexual relations between adults, even if subsequent relationships turn sour, do not automatically constitute criminal offenses unless there is clear evidence of coercion, deception, or false promises made with fraudulent intent.