FIR alleging rape on false marriage promise quashed where consensual adult relationship sours, complainant married and ineligible to remarry, no evidence of vitiated consent or initial deceit.

JUDGMENT :

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

1. Heard Mr. Faiz Merchant, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent and Mr. Ali Kaashif Khan, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

2. By this Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), the Petitioner seeks to quash the FIR bearing No. 791 of 2024, registered by the Khar Police Station, Mumbai (“Impugned FIR”), as well as the charge sheet arising from the impugned FIR. The sections referred to in the charge sheet are Sections 69 , 79, 351(2), and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (the “”), along with Sections 376(2)(n) & 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Sections 66(E) and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. The undisputed facts of the case are that Respondent No. 2, a 24 year old married woman (married on 19.03.2021), became acquainted with the Petitioner, aged 26, in Delhi while shopping at a garment exhibition. During their conversation, they got to know each other and exchanged mobile numbers. They started chatting and calling each other frequently. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 began holidaying and meeting at different places. Respondent No. 2 was gifted various items by the Petitioner. After their friendship developed, they entered into a physical relationship. The relationship is said to have begun on 15.01.2023 and continued until 03.07.2024.

4. Respondent No. 2 filed her complaint on 21.08.2024, alleging that after holidaying in Lonavala and returning to Mumbai on 13.04.2023, they booked a room in Khar, Mumbai, where they consumed alcohol. She alleges that a pill was added to her drink, causing her to fall asleep, and that the Petitioner then engaged in physical relations with her. She also alleges that under the false pretext of marriage, the Petitioner engaged in physical relations with her at different places on multiple occasions.

5. The complaint dated 21.08.2024 mentions Respondent No.2 visiting the Petitioner’s residence in Ludhiana, celebrating her birthday at the Petitioner’s house, families of both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 meeting, discussing their wedding, and then performing the “Roka ceremony,” as well as booking a pre-wedding photoshoot in Dubai. Respondent No.2 claims in her complaint that the Petitioner has refused to marry her because Respondent No.2 was previously married.

6. Subsequently, the charge-sheet was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 9^th Court at Bandra, Mumbai (“the Magistrate”) and registered as Case No. 2437/PW/2025. Case No.2437/PW/2025 was committed to the Sessions Court.

7. Mr. Faiz Merchant, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submits that the relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was consensual. He states that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 visited places together from 15.01.2023 to 03.07.2024. He argues that Respondent No. 2 was neither under a misconception nor misled. He claims that Respondent No. 2 concealed her ongoing marriage to Huzaifa Feroz Khan and kept the Petitioner and his family in the dark. He alleges that Respondent No. 2 took advantage of the Petitioner, causing him to spend money on travel to the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Jammu and Kashmir, and other locations, as well as to part with valuable gifts. He states that the Petitioner performed the Roka ceremony and booked a hotel for the wedding. He asserts that the Petitioner only realised the fraud