ORDER

Present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR at Crime No.709 of 2023 registered at Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence punishable u/Ss.376, 376(2)(n), 328, 323, 506 of IPC and all other consequential proceedings instituted at this crime number.

2. As per prosecution story, present petitioner – accused committed rape with the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after perusal of entire FIR lodged against the petitioner, it is clear that impugned FIR itself does not disclose any offence committed by the petitioner. The petitioner has not committed any offence and did not indulge in any kind of act as alleged by the prosecutrix. Further submission is that as per prosecution story, incident said to have taken place between 01.01.2020 to 22.06.2023, however, the FIR has been lodged by prosecutrix on 07.08.2023 with unexplained delay. It is further argued that petitioner and prosecutrix were in relationship and petitioner never assured the prosecutrix for marriage. The prosecutrix having some oblique motive from the beginning and placed several demands before the petitioner which was fulfilling by him on several occasion, however, when petitioner got failed to fulfill the demand, this false case has been registered against him.

4. In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 120, Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR Online 2022 SC 1302 as well as the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 14.06.2023, 14.12.2023 & 13.02.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No.15646/2023, M.Cr.C. No.20932/2023 & M.Cr.C. No.5944/2012 respectively and argued that FIR is liable to be quashed as it does not disclose any offence. Further submission is that even if the allegations are taken as it is acknowledging sexual physical relationship between the parties, it would not constitute the offence under Section 376 of IPC and at the most, the case is of physical relationship with consent which does not constitute the offence of rape. Hence, prayed that the impugned FIR as well as its consequential proceedings be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and argued that in this case, offence under Sections 376, 376(2) (n), 328, 323, 506 of IPC are made out on the basis of material available on record. Further argument is that merely this is not a case of breach of promise, on the contrary, consent by the prosecutrix was given after the promise of marriage which is evident from the averments of the FIR as well as police statement of the prosecutrix. Offences other than Section 376 of IPC have been committed by the petitioner for which ingredients are available. Under these circumstances, ingredients to constitute offence under Section 376 of IPC are available. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record.

7. The plain reading of FIR indicates that specific allegations in respect to blackmailing by petitioner has been levelled by prosecutrix. The prosecutrx has also made specific allegation not only about physical assault and but also attempt to commit her murder by petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Coordinate Bench of this Court, however, the facts and circumstances of that cases are altogether different from present case.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana; AIR 2013 SC 2071 , held that intercourse under promise to marry constitute rape only if from initial stage, accused had no intention to keep promise and accused can be convicted for rape if the Court rea