Point of Law: Amicable settlement between parties - False promise to marry - Seeks quash of FIR - A breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise - To establish a false promise maker of promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it - Court is inclined to quash the present FIR as no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting petitioner further.

JUDGMENT :

The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 150/2018, registered at police station Shakarpur, Delhi for the offences under Sections 376(2) (n)/323 IPC.

2. Notice issued.

3. Mr. G.M.Farooqui, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State accepts notice. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State submits that respondent No.2 is present through video conferencing and she has been identified as the complainant of FIR in question by the Investigating Officer of this case, who is also present through video conferencing.

4. With the consent of both the sides, the present petition has been taken up for hearing and disposal.

5. The crux of the prosecution case, as noted in the charge-sheet filed in this case, is that petitioner and respondent No.2, who is the complainant of FIR in question, studied in same college in Jaipur, Rajasthan and became friends in the year 2013. After some time, their friendship turned into love affair and they entered into physical relationship many times till the year 2017. As per the complainant, petitioner made physical relations with her on the pretext of marrying her, however, after some time he refused to marry her with the lame excuse that his family was not ready for their marriage. Aggrieved with petitioner’s refusal to marry her, respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint against him, which culminated in the FIR in question.

6. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that with the intervention of respectable members of the society, the subject matter of this FIR stands amicably resolved with respondent No.2/complainant in terms of Deed of Settlement dated 12.02.2021.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that both the sides have moved on in their lives and in fact, respondent No.2 has recently got engaged to some other person and is likely to get married soon. It is submitted that both the sides have decided to give quietus to their inter se dispute and therefore, in the interest of justice, the present petition be allowed.

8. Respondent No.2, who is present through video conferencing, has affirmed the factum of having resolved the subject matter of this FIR with petitioner in terms of Deed of Settlement dated 12.02.2021 as also contents of her affidavit dated 20.02.2021 filed in support of this petition.

9. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal 233/2021 [arising out of SLP (Crl. No. 11218 of 2019], titled as Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. against an order of dismissal of application, where accused had refused to marry the complainant despite having been in physical relationship and promised to marry her, while referring to the principles enunciated in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 observed as under:-

“9. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), while dealing with a similar situation, the principles of law which must govern a situation like the present were enunciated in the following observations:

“Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a “misconception of fact” that vitiates the woman’s “consent”. On the other hand, a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it...”

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonu @ Subhash Kumar (Supra) further held as under:-

“11. Bearing in mind the tests which have been enunciated in the above decision, we are of the view that even assuming that all the allegations in the FIR are correct for the purposes of considering the application for quashing under Section 482 of CrPC, no offence has been established. There is no allegation to the effe