Rajesh Narendra Kotangale vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

Heard.

Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties.

By the present application, filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks to quash First Information Report (FIR) No.5/2026 registered with Police Station Yashodhara Nagar, Nagpur City for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), consequent charge-sheet No.51/2026 and Sessions Case No.502/2026 pending on the file of District and Session Judge, Nagpur.

The brief facts of the case, as per the charge-sheet, are as under:-

The prosecution alleged that in the month of June-2018, the applicant committed sexual intercourse with the complainant/non-applicant no.2 on the pretext of promise of marriage. Thereafter on multiple occasions, the physical relationship were established between the complainant and the applicant in different hotels till November, 2025. Thereafter, the applicant started avoiding to have conversation with the complainant and when the complainant insisted the applicant for marriage, the applicant refused to marry the complainant. Hence, on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, the aforesaid offence came to be registered against the applicant.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well the learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for non-applicant no.2 and gone through the charge-sheet.

Perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that the applicant and the complainant got acquainted with each other through a common friend in June, 2015. Soon their friendship turned into a love relationship and in June, 2018, the applicant proposed the complainant which she accepted. The charge-sheet further depicts that in the month of June, 2018, the applicant took the complainant to one Chandani Lodge and told the complainant that as they are going to marry they can very well live like husband and wife hence, asked the complainant for sexual favours. The complainant got succumbed to the said request and established physical relationship with the applicant. It is further revealed that, thereafter, frequently physical relationship were established between the complainant and the applicant in different hotels till November, 2025. When ever the complainant asked the applicant about marriage, he used to avoid the complainant. Lastly, the applicant refused to marry the complainant.

Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), false promise of marriage was prosecuted under Section 375 r/w. Section 90 of the IPC. If the consent of the prosecutrix is obtained by misconception of fact or on false promise of marriage with no intention to comply with it then it will be treated as no consent. However, the BNS by incorporating Section 69, brought in a separate offence thereby carving out the fraudulent and deceitful conduct as spoken of therein from the grave offence of rape, while at the same time providing a penalty for the deceptive conduct alleged therein. The word employed “deceitful means or by making a promise to marry to a women without any intention of fulfilling the same” brings in the same rigor of the promise having been given with an intention of never being fulfilled, which is a deceitful conduct sought to be punished.

Consent of a woman in respect of Section 375 of the IPC must involve understanding of the circumstances, actions and consequences of the proposed act of establishing a physical relationship. To determine whether the consent was initiated by misconception of the fact arising out of the promise to marry, two propositions must be established: the promise of marriage must be a false promise given in a bad faith with no intention of being adhered to, at the time it was given and second that the false promise must be of immediate relevance and bear a direct nexus to a woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act. {See: Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr [(2019) 9 SCC 608] }

For bringing a person within the ambit of sexual intercourse by deceitful means or on false promise of marriage, the prosecution has to demonstrate that what is deceitful means i.e. by making false promise of marriage a person has established physical relationship. In the present case, there are no allegations against the applicant that at the time of initial sexual intercourse, the applicant had no intention to marry the complainant.

Be that as it may, there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant has induced the complainant into physical relationship to which she has succumbed solely on the basis of the promise of marriage rather, the FIR depicts that the applicant and the complainant were in a love relationship and the applicant was intending to marry the complainant. Since, the complainant was in love with the applicant, therefore also she gave consent. However, later on their love relationship did not culminate into marriage. At the same time, it also cannot be overlooked that an adult, especially an educated and independent adult who voluntarily enters into a romantic relationship, after exercising free and conscious choice, must be aware of the inherent uncertainties attached to such relationships. It is neither inevitable nor assured that every romantic relationship will result in marriage. Relationships may end due to a variety of personal, practical, or circumstantial reasons.

From the record it is clear that relationship between the complainant and the applicant spanned from June, 2015 to November, 2025 i.e. for almost Ten years. On multiple occasions, the physical relationship were established between the complainant and the applicant. The complainant did not lodge the FIR during initial act of sexual intercourse rather she visited various hotels with the applicant where on multiple occasions physical relationship were established between them. All these circumstances indicate that the relationship between the complainant and the applicant were consensual and the act of the complainant of engaging with the applicant into a physical relationship on multiple occasions is outcome of prolonged deliberation of the complainant. Such a prolonged and continued physical relationship between the complainant and the applicant without any demurral or remonstration by the complainant in effect takes out the sting of criminal culpability and neutralize it even if at the time of initial sexual intercourse a false promise of marriage was made.

The facts on record clearly suggest that only promise to marry was not of immediate relevance or bear a direct nexus to the decision of the complainant to engage in the sexual acts. On the mere communication of the desire of the applicant to to marry the complainant, I am unable to find the applicant having used any deceitful means. Rather the record reveals that there was a consensual relationship between the applicant and the complainant. The prolong relationship and intimacy between the applicant and the complainant went sore which resulted in lodging of the FIR by the complainant.

I, therefore, find support in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that physical relationship between the applicant and the complainant is not an outcome of any deceitful means adopted by the applicant. The present FIR is a result of broken relationship between the applicant and the complainant as the complainant is unable to accept the breakdown of her relationship with maturity. The Court is therefore required to exercise caution and discernment while examining such allegations, particularly where the material on record reflects a consensual relationship between two adults.

A reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], wherein in para no. 102 it is held as under:—

In view of the above discussion, the present case is squarely covered under the Clause nos. 1, 5 and 7 of the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). Therefore, continuation of present prosecution against the applicant is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Hence, the FIR and consequent proceedings is required to be quashed by exercising the inherent powers of this Court. Therefore, a case is made for quashing the FIR and consequent proceeding arising out of the said FIR. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-