Allegations of sexual intercourse under false promise to marry disclose prima facie offense under Section 69 BNS; quashing of FIR not warranted at preliminary stage as truthfulness requires trial.

ORDER :

RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

The present repeat petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks the quashing of FIR No. 180 of 2024, dated December 10, 2024. The said FIR was registered at Police Station Matabasaiya, District Morena, for alleged offenses under Sections 64(2)(m) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

2. The prosecution's case, in a nutshell, is as follows:

On December 10, 2024, the prosecutrix filed a written complaint stating that she is a resident of Village Rasilpur. According to her statement, the incident began approximately one and a half years ago when a man named Raju, from the same village, began visiting her home. Over time, they developed an acquaintance and began communicating regularly.

One day, Raju visited her house and proposed that she divorce her husband, promising that he would marry her. On that occasion, he allegedly established a physical relationship with her against her will. Subsequently, Raju continued to engage in a physical relationship with her on multiple occasions under the false pretext of marriage. The last such instance occurred on August 18, 2024, after which they remained in contact.

On November 28, 2024, Raju asked the prosecutrix to leave with him. Without informing anyone at her home, she accompanied him to Gwalior, where they stayed the night. On November 29, 2024, Raju’s father, Jabar Singh, contacted them and urged them to return home, assuring them that he would arrange their marriage. However, upon their return, Raju refused to marry her. On the basis of which, aforesaid crime was registered.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix is a neighbor of the petitioner and has falsely implicated him in the aforementioned crime. It is contended that the petitioner has no involvement in the alleged offense; therefore, the instant FIR deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice.

4. It is further submitted that, according to the prosecution's own case, the petitioner allegedly engaged in sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix under the false pretext of marriage, promising to marry her once her divorce was finalized. The allegations suggest that, acting on this assurance, the prosecutrix permitted further sexual intercourse despite her initial objections. It is further alleged that shortly thereafter, the petitioner reduced his interactions with respondent No. 2 and ultimately refused to marry her. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amol Bhagwal Nehul vs. The State of Maharashtra , passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024. Reliance is also placed on the judgments passed by this Court in Rajendra Aporiya vs. State of M.P. and Others (W.P. No. 33661 of 2024) and Girraj Sharma vs. State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No. 26644 of 2023) . It is submitted that in similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have quashed the FIR.

5. Counsel for the respondent/State while opposing the prayer for quashing of the FIR, submit that the allegations levelled in the FIR, when taken at their face value, clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 64(2)(m) and 87 of the IPC. The petitioner, under the guise of a promise to marry, allegedly established repeated physical relations with the prosecutrix and thereafter refused to solemnize the marriage. The contents of the FIR make out a prima facie case, and hence, the FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold. They submit that the question of whether the consent of the prosecutrix was free and voluntary or was obtained on the false pretext of marriage is a matter of trial and requires appreciation of evidence. Under these circumstances, they prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

7. From a perusal of the record, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner allegedly engaged in intercourse with th