Point of law: Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a “misconception of fact” that vitiates the woman’s “consent”. On the other hand, a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it - The “consent” of a woman under Section 375 is vitiated on the ground of a “misconception of fact” where such misconception was the basis for her choosing to engage in the said act

ORDER:

1. In the present Criminal Petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner, who is the accused in Sessions Case No.155 of 2013 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of the Offences against Women, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, is seeking quashment of the said Sessions Case. The offences alleged in the charge sheet are Sections 363, 366A and 376 I.P.C.

2. Sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that the acquaintance of the accused with the daughter of the defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein), who was a

D.Pharmacy student at relevant point of time, led to a situation, where the accused had taken away the daughter of the de facto complainant and married her and they jointly lived at Gummadidhala of Medak District, Telangana State. Though initially the police, on the complaint of the 2nd respondent herein, registered the crime as a case of ‘girl missing’, after recording statement of the girl-L.W.2, altered the F.I.R. and inserted Sections 363, 366A and 376 I.P.C.

3. Heard Smt. M.Indrani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.V.Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the de facto complainant-2nd respondent herein.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the prosecution launched against the petitioner is a patent abuse of process of law; that there are no ingredients of the provisions of law, mentioned in the charge sheet, in the case of the prosecution; and that the further continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner is not warranted, as both the petitioner and L.W.2 got married and are leading their lives with their respective spouses.

To bolster her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner takes support of the following judgments:

(1) Judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Misc. Bench No.3519 of 2015 dated 23.07.2015 in the case of Shaheen Parveen and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2015(7) ADJ 713 = 2016(2) ALJ 47.

(2) Judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Misc. Bench No.18314 of 2016 dated 16.09.2016 in the case of Basanti and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2017(1) ACR 609 = 2016(10) ADJ 57.

(3) Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maheshwar Tigga v. The State of Jharkhand, Criminal Appeal No.635 of 2020 of Hon’ble Supreme Court decided on 28.09.2020.

(4)Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2019)9 Supreme Court Cases 608.

5. Per contra, it is strenuously argued by the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor that in the absence of any one of the contingencies of Section 482 Cr.P.C., the present Criminal Petition is not maintainable before this Court; that unless the full-fledged trial takes place, the truth in the allegations cannot be un-earthed and having regard to the seriousness in the accusations, further proceedings cannot be scuttled by way of the present Criminal Petition. It is further vehemently contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that having regard to the provisions of Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the present Criminal Petition is not maintainable.

In support of his contentions, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ajab Singh, (2015) 13 Supreme Court Cases 382.

6. In the light of the contentions recorded supra, now it needs to be verified as to whether the accused-petitioner herein has made out any case, warranting indulgence of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and whether the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is permissible?

7. The provisions of law, which are germane and relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the issues in the present Criminal Petition, ar