Advocates appeared:
For the Applicant(s) : Tripurari Pal
For the Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sanjay Mishra

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The case involves an application under Section 528 BNSS filed by three accused persons, with allegations related to sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage, criminal intimidation, and related offenses (!) .

2. The main accused, applicant no. 1, is alleged to have engaged in sexual relations with the victim on the false promise of marriage since 2021, with the relationship allegedly continuing until late 2024. The other applicants, nos. 2 and 3, are accused of criminal intimidation (!) (!) .

3. The victim, who is a lawyer and resident of Aligarh, has made allegations that the accused applicant no. 1 repeatedly promised to marry her but ultimately refused, and also threatened her and her family. She claims she was forced to undergo an abortion and was threatened with consequences if she pursued legal action (!) (!) .

4. The accused's counsel argued that the relationship was consensual, based on love and affection, and that the sexual relations were not on false promises but were bona fide, with no intention to deceive. They also pointed out inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and alleged that she demanded money from the accused prior to filing the FIR (!) (!) .

5. The opposing counsel contended that the accused had given a false promise of marriage since the start of their relationship and that the victim was threatened and coerced, which prevented her from reporting the matter earlier. They emphasized that the case involves allegations under a new penal provision that criminalizes sexual intercourse by deceitful means, including false promises of marriage (!) .

6. The court examined the evidence and the timeline of events, noting that the victim and accused had a long-standing relationship and mutual promises of marriage. The court observed that the relationship was consensual, and the promise of marriage was bona fide, with no evidence of concealment or deception from the outset (!) (!) .

7. The court highlighted that prolonged consensual relations over several years, without protest or protest during the period, weaken the criminal allegations based on false promises. It also referenced the importance of the intent behind the promise of marriage and whether it was made in bad faith (!) (!) .

8. Based on the evidence and legal principles, the court found that there was no sufficient material to establish that the accused committed an offense requiring trial. The court noted that the allegations did not prove a criminal act and that the continued relationship over years with mutual consent diluted the claim of deception (!) .

9. Consequently, the court allowed the application under Section 528 BNSS and quashed the charge sheet, cognizance order, and entire proceedings against the accused persons, effectively dismissing the case (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.