The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of consent under Section 375 IPC and the distinction between a false promise of marriage and breach of promise, emphasizing the need for an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act to establish consent.

JUDGMENT :

1. Counter affidavit, filed by the State, is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Sharan Tripathi, for opposite party No.2 and Sri Rajeev Kr. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 504 of 2019 (State vs. Kunwar Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 4 of 2018, u/s 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Mahila Thana, District Maharajganj, including the charge sheet dated 4.8.2018, cognizance order dated 14.3.2019 as well as impugned order dated 11.2.2020, pending before C.J.M., Maharajganj.

4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that from the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the victim/opposite party No.2 u/s 164 Cr.P.C., it is clear that initially, the applicant and opposite party No.2 were in a relationship and subsequently, their marriage was fixed. During that period, the applicant and opposite party No.2 indulged in a consensual physical relationship. As far as the allegation of an intimate moment video is concerned, no such video is part of the case diary. It is lastly submitted that the only allegation against the applicant is that after getting the job, the applicant refused to marry opposite party No.2. In support of his contention, counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgements of Apex Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and another; (2019) 9 SCC 608, Shambhu Kharwar vs. State of U.P. and others; AIR 2022 SC 3901 as well as Naim Ahamed vs. State (NCT of Delhi); 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 stated that the applicant from the very beginning had mala fide intentions to develop a physical relationship with opposite party No.2 for his lust under a false promise of marriage. It is the case of cheating by the applicant to opposite party No.2 to satisfy his lust. It is further submitted that whether there was a false promise of marriage at the time of establishing physical relationship is a question of evidence that can be seen at the time of trial.

6. Learned A.G.A. has also adopted the argument of learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

7. From the perusal of the F.I.R. as well as the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., one thing is clear that : the applicant and opposite party No.2 were in a consensual relationship for more than one and half year and during that period their marriage was also fixed with the consent of the families of both the parties and during that period both the parties also established physical relationship. However, subsequently, on getting a job in Railways, the applicant and his family members refused for the marriage. Thereafter, the impugned F.I.R. was lodged.

8. The Apex Court, in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), observed that consent with respect to Section 375 IPC involves an understanding of the circumstances and an individual who makes a reasoned choice to act after evaluating various actions and various possible consequences, consents to such action. The Apex Court also observed in the judgement mentioned above that "misconception of fact" is the appellant's promise to marry the girl, and there is a distinction between a false promise given on the understanding by the maker that it will be broken and breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled. Paragraph Nos.12, 14 and 18 of the aforesaid judgement is being reproduced as under:-

"12. This Court has repeatedly held that consent with respect to Section 375 IPC involves an active understanding of the circumstances, actions and consequences of the proposed act. An individual who makes a reasoned choice to act after evaluating various alternative actions (or inaction) as well as the various possible consequences flowing from such action or inaction, consents to such action. In Dhruvaram Sonar[Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 : 2018 SCC OnL