A false promise to marry vitiates consent only if the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to engage in sexual relations.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Khulbe, J. - By way of present application, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., applicant seeks to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 20.12.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no.7765 of 2019, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Facts in brief are that informant/respondent no.2 and the applicant were in love; the applicant made physical relations with respondent no.2 on the false pretext of the marriage. After the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the applicant. Accordingly, the concerned CJM took the cognizance under Section 376 IPC. Aggrieved by it the applicant filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings as well as the cognizance order.

4. During the course of hearing compounding application was moved on behalf of the applicant as well as the private respondent along with an affidavit in which the private respondent/informant stated that the applicant and the respondent have now settled their dispute amicably. As per the order dated 15.02.2022 the aforesaid compounding application has been dismissed by this Court.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that admittedly both (applicant and respondent no.2) were major; the applicant never made any physical relations with the private respondent against her will; the respondent submitted information with the Police Station with some misconception of facts; after lodging the FIR, the respondent has already solemnized her marriage with other person and enjoying her marital life; the present applicant also solemnized his marriage with other lady and enjoying his marital life; the concerned court did not notice this fact; it simply took the cognizance on the basis of charge sheet. It is also argued that since at the time of occurrence both (applicant and respondent no.2) were major, there were a love relations between two; accordingly, there was no occasion to make physical relations with respondent no.2 against her will; accordingly, the cognizance order as well as the entire proceedings pending before the CJM is liable to be quashed as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181.

6. From the perusal of the record, there is no evidence that the applicant made physical relations with the respondent on the false pretext of marriage. There is no allegation to the effect that the promise to marry given to the respondent was false at the inception. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that 'where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a 'misconception of fact' that vitiates the woman's 'consent'. On the other hand, a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it.'

7. Admittedly, in the present case after lodging the FIR the respondent has already solemnized her marriage with other person and enjoying her marital life.

8. In view of the above observations, the present criminal misc. application filed U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed and the same is allowed. Consequently, the impugned cognizance order dated 20.12.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 7765 of 2019, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed qua the applicant.

9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.