ORDER :

VINAY SARAF, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this court by filing the present application under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking quashment of first information report dated 27.03.2025 (FIR No.95/2025) lodged by respondent No. 2/complainant at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal, District Bhopal which is registered under Section 351(2) and 69 of BNS, 2023. The trial is pending before the competent court.

2. As per the allegation levelled in the First Information Report, the petitioner met to the complainant on 23.12.2012 in Army Canteen, Shahjahanabad, Bhopal and thereafter the petitioner and the complainant started calling each other on mobile and the petitioner made a false promise of marriage to the complainant by representing the he is bachelor and developed physical relation with the complainant on the pretext of marriage. First time the physical relations were made on 25.12.2012 and thereafter several times the petitioner and complainant made the physical relations.

3. As per the FIR in the year 2013, the complainant came to know that the petitioner is already married but when she enquired the petitioner, the petitioner told to the complainant that the character of his wife is bad and they are not living together nor they want to live together in future and in near future he will obtain a decree of divorce. He assured that thereafter the petitioner will marry to the complainant. The complainant and the petitioner continued relationships till 2025, when on 24.02.2025 the complainant came to know that the petitioner is in contact with other ladies also and assured them in similar manner. It is also alleged in the FIR that thereafter the petitioner threatened to the complainant and complainant lodged the report against the petitioner.

4. The instant petition has been preferred for quahment of the FIR and with the consent of parties the arguments heard for the purpose of final disposal of the petition.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the physical relations between the petitioner and the complainant were developed due to mutual consent and understanding and the relationship was consensual. The complainant is also a matured lady and working as Police Constable in Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Organization, Bhopal. She was fully aware since beginning that the petitioner is already married and the petitioner never promised her to marry and therefore no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. He further submits that the complainant continued in relationship with the petitioner on her own volition and the relationship was voluntary on the part of two major persons. He further submits that as per the FIR itself the complainant came to know regarding the marital status of the petitioner in the year 2013 but even thereafter she continued the relationship with the petitioner till 2025 without any complaint. He further submits that as the relationship was consensual no offence under Section 69 of BNS 2023 is made out. He further submits that the petitioner has not obtained the consent of the complainant by deceitful manner or by making promise to marry. He further submits that sexual relationship between both of them was consensual and therefore no case of rape is made out.

6. Learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment delivered by Supreme Court in Prashant V. vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2025) 5 SCC 764. Relevant para of which reads as under;

''20. In our view, taking the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet as they stand, the crucial ingredients of the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC are absent. A review of the FIR and the complainant's statement under Section 164 CrPC discloses no indication that any promise of marriage was extended at the outset of their relationship in 2017. Therefore, even if the prosecution's case is accepted at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the complainant engaged in a sexual relationship with the appellant solely on