Consent obtained under false promises of marriage is invalid under Section 90 IPC, warranting further investigation into allegations of sexual offences.

ORDER :

1. By this common order, challenge laid by the petitioners to three different FIRs under various sections of IPC, 1860 (BNS, 2023) are being decided together.

Brief facts giving rise to S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.7570/2024 read as under:

2. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made by the petitioner to quash and set aside the FIR No.0115/2024 dated 06.02.2024 registered at PS:- Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara, District:- Bhilwara at the instance of the respondent No.2- ‘S’.

3. In the impugned FIR, it has been alleged that the petitioner met with the complainant- respondent No.2 about 06-07 years prior to the date of the lodging of the FIR and started following and pressurizing her to become his friend. When the respondent No.2 did not agree to the proposal of the petitioner’s friendship, the petitioner in order to entrap the complainant, gave her fictitious assurance of marriage and established physical relations with her in Landmark Hotel. As per the FIR, the petitioner thereafter, on multiple occasions made physical relations with the complainant on a false pretext of marriage. In the meantime, the complainant-respondent No.2 continued to request the petitioner to solemnize marriage with her as she developed and maintained consensual relationship purely because of alleged promise made by the petitioner to marry her.

4. In the FIR, it has been stated that the petitioner avoided the multiple requests so made by the complainant and therefore, in these compelling circumstances, the respondent No.2- ‘S’ decided to end her life by consuming heavy dosage of sleeping pills. The complainant was admitted in the Hospital on 15.01.2024. The petitioner after the complainant was discharge from the Hospital, on 19.01.2024, took her to Sessions Court, Bhilwara and purchased one stamp paper in her name and got some material typed. The signatures of the complainant were also obtained by the petitioner on the aforesaid document without allowing her to go through the contents of the document. When the complainant requested the petitioner to hand over a copy of the said document, she came to know that the documents indicating live-in relations between the petitioner and the complainant have got prepared by the petitioner.

5. In these circumstances, the complainant- ‘S’ went to the house of the petitioner and met with the petitioner’s father. The complainant informed the petitioner’s father that how and under what circumstances, she developed consensual relationship with the petitioner. The father of the petitioner thereupon, told the complainant- ‘S’ that she should stay away from his son i.e. the petitioner herein.

6. On receiving the information about commission of crime, the police officials of PS:- Pratap Nagar Bhilwara, District Bhilwara registered the impugned FIR against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC.

Brief facts giving rise to S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.7935/2024 read as under:

7. In this criminal misc. petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR No.0076/2024 dated 19.03.2024, registered against him at PS- Sadar Bhilwara, District:- Bhilwara by the respondent No.2- ‘A’ alleging interalia that she came in contact with the petitioner in the year 2020. The petitioner and respondent No.2- ‘A’ developed liking for each other. In the year 2021, the petitioner took respondent No.2- ‘A’ in a resort where he developed physical relationship with her on the false pretext of marriage. In the impugned FIR, it has further been alleged that the petitioner continued relationship with respondent No.2 by assuring her that he would marry her in due course of time. Later on, the respondent No.2 came to know that the petitioner is a drug addict and has been sent to the rehabilitation centre.

8. The complainant-respondent No.2 in the FIR, has further alleged that in the month of May-June, 2023, the petitioner again contacted the respondent No.2- ‘A’ and call