AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury for the petitioner Nitai Ch. Ray, who has filed this application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the FIR, charge sheet and the entire proceeding of PRC Case No. 159/2025 arising out of Fakiragram Police Station Case No. 50/2023 under Section 376/313/354(C)/420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he has indulged in consensual relationship with the victim. The petitioner promised to marry the victim and thereafter, he failed to marry her. Thereafter, the petitioner started assaulting the victim and also there are allegations that the petitioner tried to hire help to kidnap or eliminate the victim.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner and the victim were in a relationship since 18.01.2018 and the FIR was lodged as late as 28.04.2023. It is submitted that the FIR has been drafted in a manner to incriminate the petitioner with serious allegations of rape, assault and cheating.
The petitioner and Respondent No. 2 i.e., Jeuti Roy studied at Sapatgram College, Sapatgram in the district of Dhubri, Assam and they were well known to each other. The petitioner joined in service on 01.10.2011 as Sub Inspector of Police(UB), Assam and thereafter the Respondent No. 2 and her family members started to call the petitioner over phone and subsequently on 18.01.2018, the family members of both sides performed ring ceremony. Immediately after the ring ceremony, the Respondent No. 2 and her family members pressurized the petitioner to solemnize their marriage within a short period, but the petitioner did not agree, as the petitioner was the sole earner in the family consists of father, mother and younger sister. The petitioner asked the informant's family members to solemnize their marriage after marriages of his sister, but the informant’s family members were adamant and non-compromised their decision. Thereafter dispute arose between them and after that the petitioner has not maintaining any relation with the Respondent No. 2 as well as her family members. But they tried to maintain relation with the petitioner and called him over phone. The petitioner neither brought the Respondent No. 2 to his house as well as his working places nor made physical relation with her. Therefore the allegation of pregnancy of the Respondent No. 2 and forceful termination of pregnancy by administering tablets are totally false and concocted story. The allegation of blackmailing the Respondent No. 2 by showing obscene pictures and video is totally false and fabricated. On 28.04.2023, the petitioner was on duty at Sipajhar Police Station and on that day the Respondent No. 2 visited his house and called him over phone and pressurized to solemnize their marriage, but when she did not receive any positive response from the petitioner, she voluntarily left the house of the petitioner and lodged instant FIR at Fakiragram Police Station stating some false and fabricated story. The allegation of pressurizing/blackmailing the informant with the obscene video available with him is totally false and fabricated. The petitioner never recorded obscene video of the informant, which is evident from the FSL report of the petitioner's devices.
The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr : 2024 INSC 897 wherein, it has been observed that:
"30.Further, it appears that discontinuance of financial support to the complainant, rather than the alleged resiling from the promise to marry by the appellant appears to be the triggering point for making the allegation by the complainant after a long consensual relationship for about nine years.
31.In our view if criminality is to be attached to such prolonged physical relationship at a very belated stage, it can lead to serious consequences. It will open the scope for imputing criminality to such long term relationships after turning sour, as such an allegation can be made even at a belated stage to drag a person in the juggernaut of stringent criminal process. There is always a danger of attributing criminal intent to an otherwise disturbed civil relationship of which the Court must also be mindful.
32.It is evident from the large number of cases decided by this Court dealing with similar matters as discussed above that there is a worrying trend that consensual relationships going on for prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence.”
The petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amol Bhagwan Nehul Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1230 wherein, it has been observed that:
"9.In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence. This Court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC."
The petitioner has further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid & Anr Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors :2023 INSC 683 wherein, it has been observed that:
"30.At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."
The Apex Court held in Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh : (2021) SCC OnLine SC 181 that:
"12.This Court has repeatedly held that consent with respect to Section 375 of the IPC involves an active understanding of the circumstances, actions and consequences of the proposed act. An individual who makes a reasoned choice to act after evaluating various alternative actions (or inaction) as well as the various possible consequences flowing from such action or inaction, consents to such action...
14.[...] Specifically in the context of a promise to marry, this Court has observed that there is a distinction between a false promise given on the understanding by the maker that it will be broken, and the breach of a promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled...
16.Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a "misconception of fact" that vitiates the woman's "consent". On the other hand, a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it. The "consent" of a woman under Section 375 is vitiated on the ground of a "misconception of fact" where such misconception was the basis for her choosing to engage in the said act...
[.]
18.To summarize the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the "consent" of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the "consent" was vitiated by a "misconception of fact" arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act.”
Coming to the facts of the instant case, upon perusal of the material in record, this Court could not help notice that there are statements of witnesses who stated that the victim went and lived with the petitioner after the ring ceremony without waiting for any formal marriage. None of the independent witnesses have made any whisper about the victim having reported to them about any act of forcible rape. The FIR itself has been lodged after four years of the first alleged occurrence. All of this leads to a conclusion that criminality has been sought to be attached to a civil relationship that turned sour. The victim has in the meantime got married to some other person and has not appeared to contest the present case despite notice, which lends further credence to the said conclusion. It is therefore apparent that she would not participate in the trial if one were to commence. Receipt of summons from the Trial Court by the victim at her matrimonial house itself has the potential to disturb her present situation. As far as the allegation of dowry demand is concerned, the material available is not against the petitioner but against his mother and hence, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not attracted.
Under the said circumstances, permitting continuance of criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
Consequently, the Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in PRC Case No. 159/2025 pending before the Learned CJM, Kokrajhar stands quashed.