Proceedings under BNS Section 69 for sexual intercourse by deceitful promise of marriage not quashable under BNSS Section 528 despite compromise, as serious heinous offence with societal impact.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by learned JMFC, Dhanbad , in connection with Mahila P.S. case no. 09 of 2025 whereby and where under, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 69 and 352 of the BNS, basing upon the charge sheet submitted by the police against the petitioner for having committed the said offences.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner by adopting deceitful means and by making promise to marry the Opp. Party no. 2 without any intention to fulfil the same, had sexual intercourse with the Opp. Party no. 2 and has thus committed the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS. There is also allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has intentionally insulted the Opp. Party no. 2 and gave provocation to her intending and knowing it likely that such provocation will cause her to break public peace or to commit any other offence. Police after investigation of the case found the allegations against the petitioner to be true, based on the materials collected during the investigation and submitted charge sheet.

4. Relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, in paragraph 29.3 of which reads as under:-

“29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.” (Emphasis supplied)

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though in that case, it has been mentioned that the power to quash the criminal proceeding in exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC, is not to be exercised in prosecution which involves heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences of murder, rape, dacoity etc. and in respect of the offences, which are not in private nature and have serious impact on society, but since Section 69 of the BNS itself, says that the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS will happen, only when the sexual intercourse of the accused with the victim, does not amount to the offence of rape, so in respect of the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS, despite the bar imposed in para 29.3 of the aforesaid case, the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS can be compounded.

5. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kapil Gupta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2022) 15 SCC 44 and submits that therein, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while reiterating the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that though in a heinous or serious crime like rape, the Court should not normally exercise the powers of quashing the proceedings, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case and in order