HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
Fatima Begum and others - Appellants
Versus
The State of U.P., Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. Home and another - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 9282 of 2022
Decided On : 07-04-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments of the applicants (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's observations on consent and relationship (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. assessment of the allegations in context (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. legal standards for quashing criminal proceedings (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. final decision to quash proceedings (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.53786 of 2022, Nazish Fatima Vs. Mohd. Abbas and others , Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow and the summoning order dated 19.11.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Lucknow.
2. It is the case of the applicants that applicant no.1 is an old aged house- wife, whereas applicant no.2 is the retired Engineer from the U.P. State Cement Corporation and applicant no.3 is an engineering graduate, currently working in a private multinational company at Noida. It is said that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated by opposite party no.2 by making false allegation with oblique motive. It is said that applicant no.3 came in contact with opposite party no.2 through matrimonial website, namely, Shaadi.com and consequently both of them met at Barista Coffee House, Rana Pratap Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow on 04.09.2021. Opposite party no.2 introduced herself as a conservative and religious person and informed that she is pursuing D.Pharma from the Integral University, Lucknow. Opposite party no.2 told applicant no.3 that her father had been residing and working in a Motor Garage, in Saudi Arabia for the past twenty five years and had recently returned to India during the Covid-19 pandemic and now he is running a General Store in Muftiganj, Lucknow. Due to the aforesaid, it was informed by the opposite party no.2 that there are compatibility issues in her family and thus, she wants to get married at the earliest and get settled in her life.
3. It is said that applicants no.1 and 2 after intimation to the family members of opposite Party no.2, visited her home along with close relatives on 30.10.2021 and the Engagement Ceremony of applicant no.3 and opposite party no.2 was done, wherein applicants no.1 and 2 also handed presented a Gold Ring, Cash of Rs.20,000/- and sweets etc. In return, the family members of opposite party no.2 visited the house of the applicants on 13.11.2021. On 13.02.2022, applicants no.1 and 2 visited the residence of opposite party no.2 to finalize the dates of marriage and on mutual agreement, the dates for Nikah and Walima were fixed as 04.11.2022 and 07.11.2022 respectively. Thereafter, parents of opposite party no.2 visited the residence of brother of applicant no.1 on 14.02.2022 on the occasion of the Birth Anniversary of Hazrat Ali and they spent time together discussing the future marriage plans.
4. It is said that shockingly in February, 2022, applicant no.3 started receiving messages on Instagram Id from an unknown person and on 23.02.2022, several obscene and vulgar photographs of opposite party no.2 were shared by the said person, who was identified as one Haris Javed Ansari by opposite party no.2. Applicant no.3 came to know that opposite party no.2 was in relationship with the aforesaid person, namely, Haris Javed Ansari of Shahjahanpur and, therefore, on the news of the engagement of applicant no.3 opposite party no.2, the said person decided to intervene and stop the marriage of applicant no.3. Applicant no.3 also came to know that one Aman Husaini of Varanasi was also in relationship with opposite party no.2 earlier and the photographs of opposite party no.2 are with Aman Husaini as well as with Haris Javed Ansari. The aforesaid details were informed to opposite party no.2 and her family members, on which on 27.02.2022, parents of opposite party no.2 called the applicants to Shahnajaf Imambara, Hazratganj and there opposite party no.
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another
The distinction between consensual relationships and rape allegations is critical; failure to fulfill a marriage promise alone does not constitute rape absent of proof of bad faith or coercion.
A breach of promise to marry does not constitute a false promise under Section 376 IPC unless it is shown that the promise was made without intention to uphold it.
Consent under Section 375 cannot be considered valid if based on a false promise of marriage if the promise was not made with fraudulent intent from the outset. Subsequently, a prolonged consensual r....
Section 375 of IPC states that a man is said to commit rape if he has had any form of sexual intercourse without consent of a woman.
Consent obtained under a misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent under Section 90 IPC; a consensual relationship does not amount to rape.
(1) Rape – Sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage – Mere fact that parties indulged in physical relations pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to rape in every case.(2) Rape – Offe....
Consensual sexual relationships do not constitute rape even if they are based on a promise of marriage that was not fulfilled, unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.