The court ruled that consensual relations do not constitute an offence under IPC, emphasizing that mere breach of promise does not equate to a false promise of marriage.

JUDGMENT :

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. By this application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report No.501/2024, registered with Gadge Nagar Police Station, Amravati under Sections 376, 377 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No.1065/2024 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati.

3. The second respondent lodged a written report in short alleging that, her marriage was fixed with applicant no.1 in a traditional way with the consent of the parents and relatives. On 28.5.2023, engagement ceremony took place as per custom. Her parents spent about 7 to 8 Lakhs for engagement ceremony. The date of marriage was fixed as 26.11.2023.

After engagement ceremony, applicant no.1 sexually exploited her in the changing room. Thereafter, during the period between 4.6.2023 to 23.9.2023, they had physical relations at various places on multiple occasions. Applicant no.1 also indulged in oral and unnatural sex with her.

Applicant no.1, while distributing marriage invitation cards, met with an accident on 20.11.2023. Due to that the marriage was postponed. Thereafter again on one pretext or the other, the marriage was postponed. On 4.4.2024, applicant no.1 called her and asked her to come along with her parents to his house at Bramhapuri. On6.4.2024, she along with her parents and brother went to applicant no.1’s house. There applicants and 7 to 8 other relatives were present. They were told that the marriage is cancelled and applicant no.1 does not wish to marry her. Applicants no.2, 3 and other relatives told that they were not given proper respect at the time of engagement, they did not agree to give dowry and, therefore, they have no capacity to perform the marriage ceremony as per the status of applicants. She, therefore, alleged that she was sexually exploited and cheated by the applicants and her life is spoiled. On these allegations, First Information Report in question came to be registered and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 377 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and case is numbered as Regular Criminal Case No.1065/2024.

4. Heard learned Advocate for applicants, learned Advocate for second respondent and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State.

5. Learned Advocate for applicants submits that admittedly the marriage was settled and it was to be performed on 26.11.2023. The second respondent is a major lady of 30 years and even if her allegations are accepted, it is clear that her physical relations with applicant no.1 consensual, as their marriage was settled. Even as per her allegations, at the time of distribution of marriage invitation cards, applicant no.1 met with an accident and, thereafter, the marriage was cancelled at the instance of second respondent. With a view to pressurize the applicants and extort money, present first information report is lodged.

6. By relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of (1) Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2019 Cri.L.J. 1169, (2) Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in AIR 2019 SC 4010, (3) Shambhu Kharwar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in AIR 2022 SC 3901 and the decision of this Court in Criminal Application (APL) No.806/2023 (Shubham s/o Laxman Dikondwar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and one, decided on 7.5.2024), learned Advocate for applicants submits that since the physical relations were not on the basis of false promise of marriage, the first information report and the chargesheet do not disclose any offence against applicants and hence the proceedings against the applicants are liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. Per contra, l