Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita punishes deceit not disappointment; mutual consent in relationships negates false promise allegations.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. Sri Amit Sinha for the State-respondents and Sri Shivam Shukla & Sri Aniket Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the informant.

2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report dated 12.12.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 566 of 2024, under Sections 352, 351(2), 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “B.N.S.”), Police Station – Sector 63, Noida, District – Gautam Buddh Nagar, and for a direction to the respondent authorities not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned first information report.

3. Initially a first information report was lodged on 12.12.2024 which had given rise to Case Crime No. 566 of 2024, under Sections 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “D.P. Act”). It was alleged that the petitioner no. 1, Neelesh Ramchandani, was known to the first informant and had entered into a marriage alliance by having an engagement ceremony in the month of June, 2023. The marriage was to take place on the 12.11.2024. Before the marriage could take place, on the 04.11.2024, it had been alleged in the first information report that the father of the petitioner no.1, who was also made an accused and had been arrayed as petitioner no. 2, had demanded Rs. 50 lacs in cash, one Fortuner car and a flat in Allahabad. When this demand, as per the first information report, was not met by the informant’s father then the father of the petitioner no. 1 misbehaved with the father of the first informant and said that he would marry off his son to a family which would fulfil his demands. Preceding the main allegation, a detail was given as to how the first informant came to know the petitioner no. 1. It had been stated in the first information report itself that the respondent no. 4 had, after doing her B.A. LL.B., joined National Law University, Jodhpur for the purpose of doing LL.M. Also the petitioner no. 1 joined the National Law University, Jodhpur for doing the LL.M. Course. Both had joined the National Law University, Jodhpur in the year 2020. Even while doing the LL.B. Course, the two had studied at Lucknow and though they were known to each other, they were not very close. However, since the petitioner no. 1 was known to the respondent no. 4 from before and since he requested for a friendship, they both went along talking. In the first information report itself it was stated that when both of them had passed their LL.M. Course, the respondent no. 4 had also informed the petitioner no. 1 that she was of a backward caste. However, the petitioner no. 1 had continued his earlier commitment that he had liked the respondent no. 4 and that he would talk to his family with regard to marriage with her. He had also convinced her that he would marry her and nobody else. At that point of time, the father of the respondent no. 4 was in a job in the Electricity Department at Noida and there the petitioners had gone to visit him also. When the petitioners had gone to visit the father of the respondent no. 4 then the uncle of the respondent no. 4 namely Sri Harswaroop (mama) was also present. The parents of the respondent no. 4 had agreed to the marriage. However, the marriage was not solemnized immediately but was to take place after two years. It has been stated in the first information report that the petitioner no. 1 was practicing in the High Court and the respondent no. 4 was preparing for the Judicial Services.

4. For quashing of the first information report dated 12.12.2024 registered as Case Crime No.