Prolonged consensual relationships cannot be criminalized for alleging false promises of marriage; consent under mistaken beliefs must be properly substantiated.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP KUMAR, J.

1. This application has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report vide Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 186/2023 dated 06.03.2023, arising out of Complaint Case No. 1443/2022, registered for the offences under Sections 376 , 420, 406, 120-B, 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the year 2015, informant was appointed as Constable in Bihar Police and on 08.11.2015, she has joined her duty at Rohtas District Police Line, Dehari and from there, she was deputed to Sasaram Court. The petitioner was also deputed at Model Police Station, Sasaram. Informant was residing at Dehri and used to do her duty at Sasaram, and she met with the petitioner. The informant alleged that the petitioner established physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage and thereafter the petitioner denied marrying her.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant/informant, police instituted a case vide Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 186/2023 dated 06.03.2023. He further submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged in the FIR. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that the police have registered the FIR under the same sections as mentioned in the complaint which is false and fabricated. He further submits that the informant was in a relationship with the petitioner since 2015 and petitioner had broken up with her in 2018 after being selected on the post of Sub-Inspector, but she has brought the case in the year 2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the informant is a married lady and the name of her husband is Ajay Kumar and they have one child namely Hritik Raj. The informant has not stated anywhere in her complaint that she is a married woman. He further submits that petitioner never established physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage. There was only formal acquaintance between the petitioner and the informant as they both belong to the same hometown.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Surybhan Pawar vs. State of Maharasthra , (2019) 9 SCC 608 has held that mere breach of “Promise to Marry” does not constitute any offence of rape under Section 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . It is held that promise of marriage must have been given in bad faith and it must have immediate relevance to the decision to engage in the sexual act.

6. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR and has submitted that the petitioner has established physical relationship with the complainant/informant on the pretext of marriage and, therefore, the present case is not a fit case for quashing of the FIR.

7. Learned counsel for the informant has appeared but no counter affidavit has been filed to deny the specific pleading made in paragraph no. 08 of the writ petition i.e. the complainant/informant is married to one Ajay Kumar and is having one child namely Hritik Raj aged about 7 years.

8. I have considered the submissions of the parties.

9. From reading of the complaint/FIR, it appears that the complaint was filed in the year December 2022 and the date of occurrence was mentioned as 2015 to 18.12.2022. Thereafter, the case was referred to the police station for registration of an FIR under Sections 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., in which charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken.

10. From reading of the complaint/FIR, it appears that