ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him in pursuance of FIR No.0009/2022 registered at P.S. Sidhi Mahila Police Thana, District Sidhi, for the offence under Sections 376(2)

(n), 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and complainant/prosecutrix were known to each other as they were in a relationship for more than one year, which converted into their physical relations and after lapse of long time, the prosecutrix approached the police and made allegation against the petitioner saying that giving false assurance of marriage, he developed physical relations with her and on such complaint, offence got registered against the petitioner. He has submitted that physical relations between the petitioner and complainant were consensual and so far as allegation of giving false assurance of marriage is concerned, it is absolutely an incorrect and false statement made by the prosecutrix for the reason that at the time when FIR was being registered, admittedly, the prosecutrix was a married lady having an issue with her, therefore, it could not be possible for the petitioner to enter into marriage with her unless her first marriage got dissolved. He has further submitted that in the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, she had also acknowledged this fact that when she came in contact with the petitioner, she was already married and had an issue, but, since her husband was ill-treating her, therefore, she started living separately. The prosecutrix in her statement had further admitted that the petitioner assured her that after getting married with her, he would keep both with him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under such circumstances when the prosecutrix was already married, no question for giving any promise to get married with her arises and as such, when relations between them were consensual, offence under Section 376 of the IPC is not made out and, therefore, he has prayed that the under the existing circumstances, the offence registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. To give force to his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon various judgments of Supreme Court reported (2003) 4 SCC 46 [Uday Vs. State of Karnatka]; (2019) 9 SCC 608 [Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another]; (2019) 18 SCC 191 [Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others]; (2021) 18 SCC 517 [Sonu alias Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another] and also upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 4746 [Nageshwar Prasad Jaisal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another]. 3. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner on a false assurance of marriage developed physical relation with the prosecutrix and now, he is denying to get married with her and as such, offence has rightly been registered against the petitioner.

4. However, a reply has been filed on behalf of the prosecutrix taking stand therein that since on a false assurance of marriage, the petitioner developed physical relation with her, therefore, offence under Section 376 of the IPC has rightly been registered against him. According to the prosecutrix, looking to the nature of crime committed by the petitioner, this petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. In the FIR, it is narrated by the prosecutrix that she came into contact with the petitioner and gradually, they came closer and on an assurance given by the petitioner for getting married with her, they started living together in the rented premises of the prosecutrix and thereafter, physical relations got dev