Establishing criminal liability for rape based on a false promise of marriage requires evidence of original intent to deceive; an absence of such intent invalidates claims of rape under IPC.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard Shri Prashant Singh and Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsels for the appellant, Shri Jyoti Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondent/informant and Shri K.K. Gupta, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1)) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 seeks quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in Sessions Case No.291 of 2024 (State Vs. Abhinash Sharma @ Avinash Sharma), under Section 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)5 of Prevention of Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), Police Station Bilariyaganj, District Azamgarh (arising out of Case Crime No.135 of 2024), pending before the Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Azamgarh including the summoning order 13.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Azamgarh.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that an FIR was lodged by the informant, Smt. Geeta w/o Bhola, resident of Village Tohfapur, District Azamgarh, against the appellant on 4.5.2024. She alleged that her daughter (the victim) was trapped by the appellant in a love relationship, and that the appellant had established a physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage. When pressed to solemnize the marriage with the victim, he refused and threatened to kill the informant or her family members if they ever demanded marriage. She further alleged that the appellant used casteist slurs.

4. The case was investigated, and a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for offences under Sections 376, 504, and 506 IPC, as well as Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The learned court took cognizance of the offences against the appellant vide order dated 13.9.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a bare perusal of the FIR shows no allegations constituting the offences under the SC/ST Act against the appellant. No incriminating evidence was produced before the Investigating Officer to substantiate the claim that the victim was exploited by the appellant on a false promise of marriage. Notably, neither the FIR nor the victim's statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. discloses the duration of the relationship between the appellant and the victim. It merely levels a bald allegation of exploitation on the pretext of false marriage. In her statement to the Investigating Officer, the victim stated that she was sexually exploited by the appellant, who had falsely promised marriage. She alleged that when she asked the appellant to solemnize the marriage, he refused, stating it was not possible due to their different castes, and also abused and threatened her.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim admitted for the first time that she had been in contact with the appellant for the past four months. She stated that the appellant promised to marry her and thereafter established physical relations with her on two occasions—specifically on 20.4.2024 and 30.5.2024. She candidly stated that she was not raped by the appellant. Moreover, the victim stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that if the appellant marries her, she will not prosecute him. She also affirmed being about 20 years old, establishing that she is a major capable of understanding the consequences of her actions. The contents of the FIR, read with the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., clearly indicate that even assuming the prosecution's allegations to be