O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.2 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 506(1) of IPC.

2. The crux of the allegation in the FIR is that the defacto complainant / second respondent has joined as a pilot in Alliance Airline Limited. During the year 2011, while she was in training, she met the petitioner/accused who was also undergoing training for pilot and developed friendship. Thereafter, their friendship resulted in love affair and whenever she visited Chennai, the accused used to take her to various resorts and had sexual intercourse by making a promise that he will marry her. Thereafter, from the year 2013 to 2021 she was insisting the accused to marry her, for which, he has stated that he will visit her parents house and request them accordingly. On 28.08.2021, he came to her parents house with a marriage proposal and her parents also agreed for the marriage. It was also decided by both the families to conduct the marriage in the month of January, 2022 and they also conducted engagement reception on 04.09.2021. After that, the accused did not agree to the marriage and the family members of the accused also did not agree to the marriage on the ground that she is not fitting into the status of the family of the petitioner. Hence, a complaint has been given to the first respondent police and the same was registered as Crime No.2 of 2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 506(i) of IPC and now the same is sought to be quashed by the petitioner/accused.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is absolutely a false case and both of them were responsible for the love affair from the year 2011. The entire allegations in the FIR did not show that the defacto complainant has been deceived by the petitioner's on the promise of marriage, no deception has been played by the petitioner. The petitioner refused to marry the defacto complainant due to various other reasons and therefore the offences under Sections 417, 420 and 506(1) of IPC will not get attracted. It is his further contention that the petitioner and the defacto complainant developed friendship and thereafter they were having consensual sexual intercourse from the year 2011 to 2021. Merely, because the marriage proposal has broken, later on, criminal liability cannot be fastened and it is nothing but an abuse of process of law. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments:

(i) Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608;

(ii) Sonu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 1405;

(iii) K.U.Prabhu Raj Vs. State reported in 2012-2-LW(Crl) 101;

(iv) Harish Raj Urs Vs. State of Karnataka reported in MANU/KA/0743/2019;

(v) Venkatesh Vs. State of Karnataka reported in MANU/KA/0067/2022;

(vi) Varun Kumar Vs. State reported in 2018(3) MLJ(Crl) 604 and (vii) Mandar Deepak Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Crl.A.NO.442 of 2022 dated 27.07.2022.

4. Whereas, the learned senior counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would submit that the life of an innocent women has been shattered by the accused. From the year 2011 onwards, the accused has been deceiving the defacto complainant and he was having sexual relationship with her. There are disputes with regard to the financial transaction between them and the accused has also posted certain messages in his facebook and whatsapp and submitted that FIR has been rightly lodged and the investigation has just started and therefore at this stage, the same cannot be quashed. It is his further contention that there are various other allegations which can be unearthed only during the course of investigation. He further submitted that even in the police station, the accused had agreed to marry the defacto complainant and thereafter refused to marry her, hence the learned senior counsel submitted tha