AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The applicant has approached this Court by filing the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the First Information Report (for short “FIR”) dated 07.08.2021, registered as Crime No. 337/2021 at Police Station Beltarodi, Nagpur, as also for quashing of Charge-sheet dated 30.08.2025 registered as Final Report Form No.151/2025 under Section 376 (2)(n) of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) pending before learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur.
As per the case of non-applicant No. 2, and as reflected in the First Information Report dated 07.08.2021, it is the case of non-applicant No.2 that, present applicant and she became acquainted through the matrimonial website ‘shaadi.com’. They met for the first time on 19.03.2020, began communicating over phone calls, and gradually their acquaintance developed into a love affair. Subsequently, on 09.09.2020, the applicant invited non-applicant No. 2 to meet him at Hotel Ashoka, Nagpur, took her to a hotel room, compelled her to consume alcohol, and established physical relations with her on the assurance of marriage. Thereafter, the applicant continued to call her and established physical relations on multiple occasions.
Further, on 19.11.2020, non-applicant No. 2 learnt that the applicant was going to be engaged to another girl. When she confronted him about the same, he replied that although his parents wanted him to marry someone else, he intended to marry only non-applicant No. 2. However, due to this development, non-applicant No. 2 became distressed, stopped communicating with the applicant, and lodged the First Information Report which is challenged in the present application.
We have heard Mr. J.M. Gandhi, learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Nikhil Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor, for non-applicant No.1/State and Mr. Chaitanya Barve, learned counsel for non-applicant No.2.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits the allegations are founded on an admitted long-standing consensual relationship between the applicant and Non-applicant No.2. Even assuming, without admitting, that the initial physical intimacy was on a promise of marriage, the subsequent and continued relationship over a considerable period cannot, in law, be construed as being on such pretext, but is clearly consensual in nature.
The learned counsel submits that there is unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report. The alleged incident is of 09.09.2020, whereas the complaint was filed on 07.08.2021, after an inordinate delay of nearly eleven months, without any plausible explanation except the alleged breakdown of the relationship.
Learned Counsel further submits that, First Information Report itself discloses that on 19.11.2020, when non-applicant No. 2 confronted the applicant about his possible engagement with another girl, he categorically assured her that he did not like the said girl and would marry only non-applicant No. 2 despite family pressure. Thus, there was no intention of cheating but due to unforeseen circumstances the marriage could not be materialized.
Lastly, it is submitted that non-applicant No.2 got married in 2022 as also the girl with whom the applicant was allegedly engaged has likewise married another person and the applicant himself contracted marriage in 2023, from which wedlock a child has been born. Thus, a failed relationship or subsequent non-materialization of marriage does not ipso facto attract Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr. Nikhil Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1 has strongly opposes the present application that the material collected during investigation, including the statement of witnesses discloses prima facie commission of alleged offences and to dismiss the present application and trial be allowed to proceed in accordance with law, in the interest of justice.
Mr. Chaitanya Barve, learned counsel for non-applicant No.2 has adopted the submission of learned Additional Public Prosecutor and further submitted that non-applicant No. 2 came to know of the shocking fact that the applicant was already engaged to another girl, with the engagement ceremony having taken place on 22.01.2020. Despite being already engaged, the applicant deliberately suppressed this vital fact, projected himself as a bachelor on the matrimonial website ‘shaadi.com’, and pursued non-applicant No. 2. Thus, applicant had malafide intent to cheat and sexually exploit non-applicant No. 2 from the very beginning, as he pursued her while being engaged to another woman solely to take undue advantages from her.
On a careful perusal of the facts and the material placed on record, it is evident that the relationship between the applicant and non-applicant No. 2 was consensual in nature and continued for a substantial period. The allegations are founded on an admitted long-standing relationship that developed gradually from March 2020. Even assuming that the first alleged offense which happened on 09.09.2020 was induced by a promise of marriage, the subsequent and continued relationship over a considerable period, during which non-applicant No. 2 voluntarily maintained physical relations on multiple occasions, clearly demonstrates consensual conduct rather than deceit.
This unbroken chain of voluntary interaction and continued intimacy long after the alleged incident completely belies any claim of forcible intercourse or of consent having been vitiated by a false promise of marriage promise. The conduct of non-applicant No. 2 is wholly consistent only with a consensual, adult romantic relationship that subsequently turned sour. The concept of ‘Consent’ has been elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Samadhan Manmothe v. State of Maharasthra & another, 2025 I NSC 1351 which reads as under:
38.At this stage it is material to refer to the decision of this Court in Mahesh Damu, wherein the following observations were made:
“29.It must also be clear that for a promise to be a false promise to amount to misconception of fact within the meaning of Section 90IPC, it must have been made from the very beginning with an intention to deceive the woman to persuade her to have a physical relationship. Therefore, if it is established that such consent was given under a misconception of fact, the said consent is vitiated and not a valid consent. In this regard we may refer to DeepakGulati v. State of Haryana [Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 660], in which it was held as follows: (SCC pp. 6 82-84, paras 21 & 24)
“21.Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent involved was given after wholly understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual interc ourse on account of her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of misrepresentation made to her by the accused, or where an accused on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated differently. An accused can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives.
24.Hence, it is evident that there must be adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time i.e. at the initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim. There may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances. The ‘failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does not always amount to misconception of fact. In order to come within the meaning of the term “misconception of fact”, the fact must have an immediate relevance’. Section 90 IPC cannot be called into aid in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and fasten criminal liability on the other, unless the court is assured of the fact that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended to marry her.”
Further, the Apex Court, in the same judgment para 27, observed that :
27.In this regard, it becomes relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 11 SCC 398, (“Mahesh Damu”) wherein the following observations were made:
“27.In our view, if a man is accused of having sexual relationship by making a false promise of marriage and if he is to be held criminally liable, any such physical relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise made and not qualified by other circumstances or consideration. A woman may have reasons to have physical relationship other than the promise of marriage made by the man, such as personal liking for the male partner without insisting upon formal marital ties.
28.Thus, in a situation where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of the alleged promise made by the appellant to marry her. Thus, unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby having a direct nexus with the physical relationship without being influenced by any other consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent under misconception of fact.”
Further, there exists an unexplained and inordinate delay of approximately nine months in lodging the First Information Report. The alleged incident of establishing physical relations occurred on 09.09.2020, whereas the complaint was filed only on 07.08.2021. No plausible explanation has been provided for this substantial delay except the alleged breakdown of the relationship. Such delay raises serious doubts about the genuineness of the allegations and indicates that the First Information Report is an afterthought, lodged in the heat of failed relationship.
The subsequent developments further demonstrate that the prosecution has lost its relevance and purpose. Non-applicant No. 2 herself got married in 2022. The girl with whom the applicant was allegedly engaged has likewise married another person. The applicant contracted marriage in 2023, from which wedlock a child has been born. These changed circumstances clearly indicate that all parties have moved on with their lives. The continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would serve no purpose except to harass the applicant and would be an abuse of the process of law.
In view of the arguments advanced and upon a holistic appreciation of the entire material on record and the consistent judicial precedent on the subject, we are, therefore, of the view that the matter squarely falls within the laid down parameters of the judgment in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, which read as under:
“1)………
2)………
3)………
4)………
5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6)………
7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
In light of the aforesaid analysis, the First Information Report dated 07.08.2021 and the charge-sheet dated 30.08.2025 do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. The relationship was consensual in nature, there was genuine intention to marry, and the non-materialization of marriage was due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control. The inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report, the subsequent marriages of all parties concerned, and the absence of any material indicating deliberate deceit from the inception, all point towards the fact that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of the process of law, hence we pass the following order.
O R D E R
The application is allowed.
First Information Report bearing Crime No. 337/2021 dated 07.08.2021 registered with Police Station Beltarodi, Nagpur, for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, together with all consequential proceedings, including Final Report/Charge-Sheet No.151/2025 dated 30.08.2025 pending before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant, namely, Shri Shardul Shivdas Ukey.
The application is disposed of.