Consent under Section 376 IPC is valid if the promise to marry was genuine; lack of intention to deceive negates false promise claims.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

I.A. No. 11804 of 2024

1. Heard the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to implead the informant as opposite party no.2 in view of the settlement between the parties outside the court.

3. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer is allowed.

4. The petitioner is directed to implead the informant as opposite party no.2 in the cause title of this criminal miscellaneous petition during the course of the day.

5. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding along with the FIR in connection with Tetulmari P.S. Case No. 29 of 2023, corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 765 of 2023 and G.R. No. 2099 of 2023 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad though in page nos. 3 and 12, it has wrongly been mentioned as Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Dhanbad. Prayer has further been made to quash the entire charge sheet and subsequent reliefs.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the informant was in love with the petitioner for four years prior to institution of the case and the petitioner promised to marry her and requested her to have physical relationship with him. Consequent upon such promise, the petitioner has been sexually exploiting the victim for four years. On 29.06.2023 when the informant proposed the petitioner to marry her as he has already got the employment, the petitioner refused to do the same and assaulted and abused the informant.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner was not having the intention to marry the victim at the time of making the promise. Hence, it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. So far as the other offences are concerned, it is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 by drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.3704 of 2025 which is supported by separate affidavits of the petitioner and the informant-opposite party no. 2; that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the dispute between the parties has already been settled outside the Court. Therefore, the informant does not want to proceed with the case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Madhukar & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7212 of 2023 dated 14.07.2025, paragraph no. 6 of which reads as under:-

“6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.”

wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as