The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of consent in a relationship, particularly in cases involving promises of marriage, must involve active and reasoned deliberation. The distinction between a false promise and a breach of promise is crucial in determining the presence of an offence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S.M. Abdullah P., learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.R. Kaushik learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State of Assam.

2. The petitioner has filed his application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (‘CrPC’, for short), seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of G R Case No. 5418 of 2016, arising out of Barpeta Road PS. Case No. 452 of 2016, registered under Sections 420/376/120(B)/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and also the charge sheet being C S No. 286 of 2016 dated 31.12.2016. The case is pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM for short) at Barpeta. The State of Assam and the informant are arrayed as respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 respectively.

3. The FIR unfolds that for the last three years, since 22.10.2016, the informant X was in love with the petitioner Sri Partha Saha. The petitioner induced the informant into physical relationship with false promises of marriage. On 16.10.2016, the petitioner took the informant to Guwahati, promising to marry her at Kamakhya Mandir and he kept her in Assam Lodge, by introducing themselves to be husband and wife. On the same day at about 02:30 pm, the police raided the lodge and took them into custody. The police from the Jalukbari Police Station raided the lodge and took them into custody. In the Jalukbari Police Station, the petitioner in presence of the police personnel and the family members of the informant, promised to marry the informant. However, on 17.10.2016, the accused No. 2, Bhambal Saha, in collusion with the petitioner, hatched up a conspiracy and the petitioner fled away without marrying the informant. On 22.10.2016, the informant went to the petitioner's house but Bhambal Saha rebuked the informant and slapped her in presence of the petitioner and his father Guru Das Saha, who is also arrayed as accused No. 3 in the FIR. Bhambal Saha, accused No. 2 also tugged at the informant's hair and dragged her out of the petitioner's house. An FIR regarding this incident was lodged by the informant-respondent No. 2 herein, and investigation commenced. The IO submitted charge sheet against the petitioner, whereas the other accused named in the FIR were not sent up for trial.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is erroneously booked under Section 376 IPC. He has admitted of a love relationship between him and the respondent No. 2 and he also admitted that he proposed marriage to respondent No. 2, but differences cropped up between him and the respondent No. 2 and their relationship turned sour. In order to compel the petitioner to marry her, the informant lodged a false FIR against him. The petitioner was a student at the time, he promised to marry the informant, but now due to some unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner is not willing to marry the informant and he ought not to be coerced by a false case to marry the informant.

5. The petitioner had also preferred an anticipatory bail petition being AB No. 969 of 2016 and the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta was pleased to grant him the privilege of bail, considering the nature and circumstances of this case. It is averred that after the lodgement of the FIR, the informant was taken for medical examination, but no adverse report was submitted by the Medical Officer.

6. The petitioner has filed an affidavit marked as Annexure-5, wherein the informant has sworn in that she has settled the dispute with the petitioner. The criminal case was initiated due to a misunderstanding between her and the petitioner and in presence of respectable citizens, they have settled their dispute amicably. The informant has stated in the affidavit that she is not willing to proceed with the case being G R Case No. 5418 of 2016.

7. The order in this case dated 30.05.2018 reflects that notice was served on respondent No. 2. The order dated 05.02.2020 also reflects that the respondent No. 2 was not repre