The legal principle established in the judgment emphasizes the requirement for active and reasoned deliberation for consent under Section 375 and the need for a false promise to be given in bad faith with no intention of being adhered to under Section 90 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT

Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. - Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. J. Techi, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 2.

2. By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 18.02.2019, pertaining to Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 24/2019, registered under Sections 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts of the case can be put in nutshell as follows.

4. The petitioner, herein, is now pursuing his Post Graduate studies in Medicine. While he was studying in Class-10, he developed relationship with a girl of his class and thereafter had physical relationship with her. Their physical relationship continued for several subsequent years.

5. Now, the aforesaid girl has lodged an F.I.R. on 18.02.2019 before the Police stating that in the month of March 2007, the petitioner had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her at mid night in a house of her relative located at Yazali. Thereafter, one day while she was staying in the rented house of her classmate, the petitioner arrived there at mid night and started to touch her private parts without her permission. As to how he entered into the house, the victim girl has explained that at that time she did not know that the petitioner was knocking at the door. She thought that someone else was knocking the door and therefore she had to open the door and the accused came in and did that act with her. The victim girl further stated that on that day, the petitioner again had forcible sexual intercourse with her. But this time, the petitioner told her that he really loved her and would marry her in future. The victim girl has stated that she was carried away by the false promise of the petitioner and started to have regular physical relationship with him for many subsequent years. In the year 2011, the petitioner went to Ukraine to pursue his further studies. The victim girl has alleged that from some reliable source, she came to know that the petitioner had fallen in love with another Arunachali girl who was also staying at Ukraine. The victim confronted the petitioner on this issue and the petitioner denied that fact.

6. By that time, the victim girl started to develop a fear that the petitioner might not marry her. Therefore, she informed her family about the aforesaid fact. Her family then contacted the family of the petitioner and both the sides had discussions about that matter. In one of such meetings, the petitioner again promised that he would marry her when his studies are over.

7. The victim girl has further stated that very slowly, the petitioner started to ignore her but his family members assured her that after completion of studies the petitioner would surely marry her. Thereafter, on one occasion, the petitioner had come to Itanagar and again had sexual intercourse with her.

8. By that time, the petitioner had completed his studies from Ukraine and returned to New Delhi where he started to do his internship. But the victim girl was disturbed by the behavior of the petitioner as he was allegedly ignoring her. Finally, on 13.12.2018, the victim girl had gone to New Delhi to meet the petitioner but on seeing the victim girl there, the petitioner became angry and allegedly beat her also. After that, the petitioner brought her to a place called Gautam Nagar at New Delhi and deserted her there. Next day, she returned to Itanagar.

9. The victim girl has claimed that after an 11 years old relationship, the petitioner cheated her on a false promise of marriage and thereby had physical relationship with her.

10. With the aforesaid allegations, the victim girl lodged the F.I.R. on 18.02.2019.

11. Mr. Sonar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that there is a difference between false promise and breach of promise. Mr. Sonar, learned counsel, has further s