ORDER

1. This petition under section 528 of BNSS (482 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed seeking quashing of FIR registered vide Crime No.82/2025 at Police Station Adhartal, District Jabalpur for the offence under section 69 and 351(2) of BNS.

2. On the basis of the written complaint made by the prosecutrix on 29.1.2025 at Police Station Adhartal, District Jabalpur, Crime No.82/2025 was registered against the applicant for the offence under section 69 and 351(2) of BNS. It is alleged in the FIR that the present applicant by giving false assurance of marriage to the prosecutrix developed physical relations with her. The prosecutrix is aged about 32 years and is a widow. Her husband died in an accident in the year 2021 and thereafter the present applicant, being a friend of her deceased husband, used to call her on mobile and used to visit her house. The applicant was helping the prosecutrix in managing various works and as such they became very close and after almost three months of the death of her husband the applicant used to visit the house of the prosecutrix and thereafter he disclosed his intention that he liked her and also proposed her for marriage. The prosecutrix asked him to first seek permission from his family members and he assured that it had already been done. They decided to enter into marriage in the month of May 2021 as such they developed physical relations in between and used to live like husband and wife, but after staying together for a long time, the applicant refused to marry her. When the prosecutrix tried to create pressure upon him, he threatened to kill her. It is also alleged in the complaint that due to the physical relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix she became pregnant and delivered a child, who is at present aged about seven months. It is also alleged that after giving false assurance of marriage the applicant has been exploiting her physically for the past three years and as such she lodged FIR against him.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that even if the contents of the FIR are assumed to be true at its face value then also no case of rape is made out. Even a case under section 69 of BNS is not made out because he has never given any false promise of marriage and even otherwise since the relationship continued for years together with mutual consent so no offence is made out and, therefore, the applicant cannot be prosecuted.

4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents have opposed the submissions and submits that since it is alleged that the applicant after giving false promise of marriage developed physical relationship and prosecutrix has also given birth to a child, offence under section 69 of BNS is rightly registered against the applicant and it will be decided during the trial whether the false promise of marriage had been given or not ?

5. Counsel for the Objector has also supported the stand taken by the State and submits that merely because prosecutrix and applicant lived in a relationship for long that does not mean that offence under section 69 of BNS is not made out and it is not a case of consensual sexual relationship. It is further submitted that when prosecutrix realized that this relationship would not be converted into marriage she made a complaint to the police.

6. To rebut the aforesaid submissions, counsel for the applicant submits that there is no proof available with the prosecution so as to substantiate about the promise made by the present applicant to the prosecutrix for marriage. He submits that overall circumstances existing in the case are required to be seen and it is clear that it is not a case where physical relationship was developed once or twice but this relationship continued for years together and after such a long time if such complaint is lodged, the offence does not fall within the ambit of section 69 of BNS.

7. In reply, counsel for the respondents again opposed the submissions and submits that if it is alleged by the prosecutrix that relations