IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43644 of 2024 ARPAN KUMAR DWIVEDI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Prashant Singh Baghel - Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Pushpanjaly Dwivedi - PL for the respondent/State.

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/528 of BNSS, 2023 has been preferred by the accused/petitioner for quashing the chargesheet filed in connection with Crime No.84/2024, registered at Police Station Beohari, District Shahdol (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC.

2 . As per the prosecution, the complainant lodged a written complaint that she is divorced from her husband and residing with her parents. In complaint she has mentioned that there are good relationship with the present applicant and her family members and applicant used to visit her house. On 06.06.2022 at about 2:00 P.M. the complainant went to Beohari to do her some personal work. While she was returning to her home the present applicant met her on the way and stated to her that there is no bus right now, she may take rest at his room. Thereafter she went to his room the present applicant grabbed prosecutrix and made forcible sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter present applicant gave assurance to prosecutrix to marry her and he is in love with her. Prosecutrix further stated that thereafter on several occasions applicant made sexual relations with her on false pretext of marriage. The present applicant got selected for government service and refused to marry her. Therefore, she lodged a report against the present applicant on 12.02.2024 after a long relationship of more than 1.5 years. Upon lodging of report by the prosecutrix, investigation was commenced by the Police during the course of which, statement of various witnesses including that of prosecutrix were recorded and other material was collected. After completion of the investigation report, charge sheet has been filed by the Police before the concerned Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present petition has been preferred by the applicant on the ground that allegations levelled against him by the prosecutrix even if are taken to be true at their face value do not amounts to commission of any offence by him. It is further submitted that it is not a case where the accused has developed physical relationship with the prosecutrix under false pretext of marriage. At the best it is a case of breach of promise to marry and cannot be in any manner stretched to be a case of false promise having been made to convince the prosecutrix to engage in sexual relations. There was no misconception of fact which can be said to have vitiated the consent of the prosecutrix. The accused is alleged to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix and thereafter promised to marry her. However, he allegedly did so for a period of 1.5 years yet the prosecutrix continued to have physical relationship with him. It was a simple case of love relationship between the parties which has gone wrong and is not a case of commission of rape on false pretext of marriage. It is further submitted that the proceedings against the accused are gross abuse of the process of law hence deserve to be quashed. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that at the time of incident prosecutrix was a major lady and aged about 40 years. She is well educated and was aware of consequences of the relationship between her and petitioner. The relationship between them was consensual and the consent was not obtained under misconception of fact. The first incident as stated in the FIR has took place on 06.06.2022. However, she willingly and voluntarily abstained from lodging any complaint or report against the alleged first incident and thus the consent by prosecutrix was conscious and made by her after due deliberation.