JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The revision has been preferred, praying for quashing of Dankuni Police Station Case No. 28 dated 19.03.2009, under Sections 493/376/313/109 of the Indian Penal Code being GR Case no. 208/2009, pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Serampore District – Hooghly, in respect of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the Opposite Party No.2 filed a Written Complaint against petitioner No. 1’s son by alleging that his father (petitioner no. 3) along with petitioner No. 2, had given a marriage proposal to the father of opposite party no. 2. Thereafter as per the allegation made by the opposite party no. 2, petitioner no. 1’s brother took this opportunity and started a relationship with opposite party no. 2 and raped her several times on the proposal of marriage. After that according to the opposite party no. 2 she had conceived a child, which ended in a miscarriage. As alleged by the opposite party no. 2, the petitioner no. 1’s brother subsequently denied to marry her and so she lodged a written complaint and on the basis of the written complaint FIR being no. 28/09 dated 19.03.2009 was started under Sections 493/376/313/109 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted by the petitioner that the opposite party no. 2 herein liked the petitioner’s no. 1’s brother and proposed to him but when he denied her proposal, she lodged the false complaint against the petitioner’s brother and that she never miscarried as alleged because they never co-habited. And that’s the reason the opposite party no. 2 never produced the medical certificate regarding the miscarriage.

4. That the allegations made in the F.I.R./written complaint is totally false and does not disclose the commission of any offence and nor is there any prima facie case against the petitioners.

5. The allegations made in the F.I.R./written complaint are so absurd that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion and that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Mr. Ashis Kumar Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the investigation of the purported crime is perfunctory, fake, fraudulent, and unreliable and seeks the interference of this court in quashing the said investigation.

7. The said case was initiated mischievously and with malafide for wreaking vengeance to settle private and personal grudge.

8. Thus it is prayed that the proceeding be quashed.

9. Mr. Madhusudan Sur, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the judgment under revision is in accordance with law and needs no interference. The revision is thus liable to be dismissed.

10. Heard the learned counsels for both sides. Perused the materials on record. Considered.

11. Following judgments have been relied upon by the petitioners:-

1. Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Appeal No(s). 442/2022, On 27th July, 2022, the Supreme Court held that:-

“We are fortified to adopt this course of action by the judicial view in (2019) 9 SCC 608 titled “Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.” where in the factual scenario where complainant was aware that there existed obstacles in marrying the accused and still continued to engage in sexual relations, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR. A distinction was made between a false promise to marriage which is given on understanding by the maker that it will be broken and a breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled. This was in the context of Section 375 Explanation 2 and Section 90 of the IPC, 1860.”

2. Shambhu Kharwar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1231 of 2022, On August 12, 2022, the Supreme Court held that:-

“10. An offence is punishable under Section 376 of the IPC if the offence of rape is established in terms of Section 375 which sets out the ingredients of the offence. In the present case, the second description of Section 375 along with Section 90 of