Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Soni vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 July, 2022
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8463 of 2022
Petitioner :- Pankaj Soni
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd Raghib Ali,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Raghib Ali for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report, registered as Case Crime No.160 of 2022, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, Police Station Karchhana, District Prayagraj, which contains an allegation by the informant that the accused petitioner on the promise of marriage has formed physical relations and later disowned her. It is also alleged that threats are being extended to the informant from the family members of accused petitioner and she is being compelled to withdraw from the relationship, which she had with petitioner.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that necessary ingredients to invoke an offence under Section 375 IPC is not made out, inasmuch as the First Information Report does not specifically allege that the promise to marry the informant was done in bad faith or with an intention to deceive her. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2019 (9) SCC 608, in which the Supreme Court has observed as under in Paragraph 21:-
"21. The allegations in the FIR do not on their face indicate that the promise by the appellant was false, or that the complainant engaged in sexual relations on the basis of this promise. There is no allegation in the FIR that when the appellant promised to marry the complainant, it was done in bad faith or with the intention to deceive her. The appellant's failure in 2016 to fulfil his promise made in 2008 cannot be construed to mean the promise itself was false. The allegations in the FIR indicate that the complainant was aware that there existed obstacles to marrying the appellant since 2008, and that she and the appellant continued to engage in sexual relations long after their getting married had become a disputed matter. Even thereafter, the complainant travelled to visit and reside with the appellant at his postings and allowed him to spend his weekends at her residence. The allegations in the FIR belie the case that she was deceived by the appellant's promise of marriage. Therefore, even if the facts set out in the complainant's statements are accepted in totality, no offence under Section 375 IPC has occurred."
Petition is opposed by learned AGA, who states that the FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of the entire version of informant, inasmuch as the intent at the time of its lodgement is merely to ensure that investigation is carried out into the allegations of commissioning of offence.
We have perused the First Information Report, which states that the informant is a second year graduation student and the petitioner is also a student and is resident of nearby area. The allegation is that since 17.8.2020 the petitioner on the pretext of marriage has been having physical relations with the informant. Whether the allegation in the FIR is correct or not is an aspect, which is to be examined during the course of investigation. It cannot be said, in facts of the case, that there is no assertion in the FIR that the physical relations between the parties were formed on the promise of marriage. Whether the promise was based on bad faith or with an intention to deceive the informant are aspects, which require examination at the stage of investigation. We are not inclined to scuttle the investigation in the facts of the case on the ground that even prima facie commissioning of cognizable offence is not disclosed in the matter. In such circumstances prayer made to quash the First Information Report is declined in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779, as also in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315.
Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed.
Dismissal of this writ petition, however, will not preclude the petitioner from seeking appropriate protection under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which shall be dealt with on its own merit and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 11.7.2022
Anil
