JUDGMENT :

M.K. Thakker, J.

1. The present application is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, for quashing the FIR registered with Sayajiganj Police Station, Vadodara City, dated 20.05.2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 69 of BNS Act being I-CR No.11196030250292 of 2025.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Virat Popat for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent - State. Learned advocate Mr. Popat submitted that as per the allegations made in the FIR, the applicant came into contact with the first informant through Facebook on 11.11.2022, and then after they started conversation with each other. He submitted that as per the allegations the applicant enticed the complainant with promise of marriage and invited her to Vadodara. The first informant went to Vadodara Railway Station on 12.02.2024, and the applicant took her in the hotel namely Hotel Sunday, Sayajiganj, in room no.538, where they stayed together, and under the pretext of marriage indulged into physical relations. It is submitted that as per the allegations, the applicant had assured to get married with the complainant in the month of December 2024, and later in January 2025, the applicant refused to marry with the complainant as his mother did not accept their relationship. It is submitted that the applicant is the permanent resident of Zambia, and during the period when the applicant was in contact with the complainant he was also in contact with the mother of the complainant, and has provided the financial assistance by transferring the amount of Rs.40,000/-. It is submitted that the applicant has also sent the mobile phones and clothes to the complainant from Mumbai amounting to Rs.32,000/- as well as was in contact with the maternal aunt of the complainant. The said aspect clearly demonstrates that the relationship between the applicant and the complainant was cordial, voluntary and genuine in nature, and applicant had never extended any false promises or induced the complainant as alleged in the FIR. It is submitted that the alleged incident has taken place during the 12.02.2024 to 01.01.2025, and the FIR came to be lodged after delay of approximately five months from the date of alleged incident which creates serious doubts about the veracity and genuineness of the allegations made against the applicant. It is submitted that even if the allegations made in the FIR are accepted to be true, no prima- facie cognizable case is made out leveling the charge under Section 69 of the BNS Act. It is submitted that merely an attempt and false case is foisted by the complainant, and the complainant and the applicant are belonging to different communities, and the complainant and the applicant both were adult were indulged into physical relations, in that background, it cannot be said that ingredients of Section 69 of the BNS Act is satisfied. It is submitted that even otherwise also allegations levelled against the applicant are so absurd and improbable on which no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that any offence is made out. In that background, it is prayed to quash the impugned FIR, and allow the present application. Learned advocate Mr. Popat has also relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions.

(i) In the case of Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. neutral citation 2024 INSC 897

(ii) In the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608

iii) In the case of Anurag Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2019) 13 SCC

iv) In the case of Naim Ahamed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66

3. Per contra, learned advocate APP Mr. Ronak Raval for respondent - State submitted that the applicant had not cooperated with the investigation, and at present, investigation is at large. In that background, interference at this stage would be uncalled for.

4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the res