Promise of marriage must be established as false from the outset to vitiate consent; refusal to marry after a consensual relationship does not constitute a crime under IPC.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-1st, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 399 of 2020, arising out of Patna Mahila P.S. Case No.131 of 2019, whereby the learned trial court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’).

2. The prosecution story, in brief, based on the written complaint of one R.K. (name hidden) before Mahila Police Station, Gardanibagh, Patna, alleging therein that she is a constable in Patna District Police and residing near Goal Ghar, Shiv Mandir on rent. In the said house, one Kishna Raj @ Krishan Kumar was also a tenant next to the informant’s room. It is stated that after introduction and talk with each other, both informant and petitioner came close to each other. After sometime, petitioner proposed to the informant for their marriage, which was accepted by the informant. After 20-22 days, petitioner asked informant for physical relation, but same was denied before marriage. It is further alleged that petitioner assured the informant that he will definitely marry with her after obtaining consent from parents but it will take some time. Thereafter, the informant and petitioner make physical relation. The informant also gave monetary help to the petitioner. The father, mother and brother of petitioner also discussed this issue with informant but, they refused to give their approval for marriage. Despite of parental refusal, petitioner assured the informant for marriage. It is further alleged that after passing considerable time, the informant created pressure upon the petitioner for marriage, which has been refused by him also then, informant feels that she has been cheated.

2.1. It is also alleged that earlier, on 13.06.2019, a complaint was also lodged with Buddha Colony Police Station, where it has been suggested to the informant to approach Gandhi Maidan Police Station. Thereafter, Gandhi Maidan police suggested to contact with Mahila Police Station. Then, on 14.06.2019, Mahila Police Station, apprehended the petitioner and the informant and petitioner both were detained in police station, where petitioner has been released from police station on the ground that there is no evidence. Thereafter, the informant lodged complaint before higher ofÏcials and then the police called the petitioner and his father. This time, father of the petitioner executed a bond regarding marriage of petitioner with informant and also signed it. Accordingly, invitation cards were also printed and distributed but, in the meantime, petitioner and his parents demanded Rs.10 Lakhs as dowry. After intervention of villagers and family members, it was fixed upto Rs. 5 Lakhs. Despite of payment of Rs. 5 Lakhs as dowry, the accused persons refused to solemnize the marriage.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, an F.I.R. being, Patna (Mahila) P.S. Case No.131 of 2019 has been instituted for commission of the offences under Sections 376 and 420 read with 34 of the IPC.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for petitioner that the present case was lodged only when marriage of O.P. No.2 could not finalized with petitioner due to certain social reasons. It is submitted that admittedly O.P. No.2 was in love affairs with petitioner, the complainant/O.P. No.2 was aged about 24 years old at the time of occurren