The court determined that consent given in a relationship cannot be construed as vitiated by misconception of fact if no deceitful intent exists.

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.9 of 2025, on the file of the first respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 69 , 351(3) of BNS , 2023.

2. The crux of the allegations in the FIR are that the first accused was working as a driver to the defacto complainant/second respondent's father and maintained a relationship with the family as a family friend. After the demise of her father, the second respondent married one Venkat Prabhu and later obtained a divorce. The first accused as a well wisher supported her during the divorce proceedings and on the promise to marry her had sexual intercourse with her and had borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from her, the second accused who is the brother of the first accused had criminally intimidated her. Hence, the complaint was given and FIR was registered in Cr.No.10 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 69 , 351(3) of BNS , 2023 and now the same is sought to be quashed.

3. Now, the parties have filed a joint memorandum of compromise before this Court stating that due to intervention of well wishers, elders, relatives and after mutual discussions, both parties have realised that the matter was entirely personal in nature and continuation of criminal proceedings would only lead to unnecessary mental agony, harassment. Therefore, the parties have filed a joint memorandum of compromise, wherein, the defacto complainant expressed her no objection to quash the FIR in Cr.No.9 of 2025 against the accused. The petitioners and the de-facto complainant/R2 appeared before this Court and were identified by M/s.K.Janaki, Sub Inspector, W35, AWPS Police Station, Koyambedu. 4. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. At the outset, this Court is of the view that the offences of serious nature, compounding is not permissible, however, taking note of the allegations pressed in the FIR, this Court is inclined to dispose of the matter on merits.

5. Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 reads as follows:

" Section 69 - Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc. Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

6. The very allegations raised by her indicate that she has completed Computer Science Diploma Course and had affair with the A1 and both had sexual intercourse on many occasions. Though it is alleged that A1 has deceived her by giving promise of marriage and had sexual intercourse, when the FIR carefully perused, it clearly indicates that they had sexual intercourse for multiple times. Had it been a case in which relationship developed once or twice and prosecutrix restrained the applicant for further developing physical relationship between them asking him to first fulfil the promise of marriage, then it would have been a case of false promise of marriage. Therefore, it cannot be stated that only because of deception played by A1, she had succumbed to such a pressure. To bring the case within the ambit of misconception of fact, there must be materials to show that bad faith or deception was present from the very inception. Whereas, the entire allegations in the FIR clearly indicate that the defacto complainant and the A1 had indulged in sexual intercourse for several times. In fact, defacto complainant also consented to have sexual intercourse for many times. In such a situation, to bring the act of A1 under the ambit of misconception of facts, there must be evidences or atleast some materials, which is not available on perusing the entire materials.

7. The very factum that they had sexual intercourse many