Deceitful marriage promise during forcible rape despite protest does not exclude rape offence; malicious prosecution claim not assessable at summoning stage but post-trial; quashing under CrPC Section 482 denied based on investigation findings.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of repeated calls.

3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Gomia P.S. Case No.98 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1315 of 2023 including the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 376(2)(n), 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, 2019 against the petitioner.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner outraged the modesty of the victim, taking advantage of the informant/victim alone in her matrimonial house, trying to forcibly establish physical relationship with her in which he could not succeed because of the uproar raised by the informant/victim. There is further allegation that on 24.08.2023 at about 11AM, the petitioner came to the paternal house of the informant and finding her alone forcibly raped her despite the protest of the informant/victim by deceiving the informant to marry and thereafter by alluring the informant/victim on several occasions established physical relationship.

5. The informant lodged the written report against her husband and the petitioner who is the cousin brother of her husband and on the basis of the same, police registered Gomia P.S. Case No.98 of 2023 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, police found the allegations against the petitioner so far as the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code to be true and submitted charge sheet against him. After submission of charge sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat took cognizance of the offence inter alia punishable under (2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and passed the summoning order.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in this case, the next dated fixed is 25.02.2026 for appearance of the petitioner as the co-accused has not appearing before the trial Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pramod Kumar Navratna vs. State of Chattisgarh & Others reported in 2026 INSC 124 and submits that in para-22 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in identifying the genuine cases filed under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code by identifying the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence i.e. there should be a promise of marriage made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations and without having any intent of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning, and that such false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations. Such genuine cases, that deserve prosecution of the accused must be clearly demarcated from the litigation that arises from the cases of consensual relationships between consenting adults going acrimonious on account of dispute and disagreement or a future change of mind and submits that th