[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar Kunsariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64550
1 MCRC-19760-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 9 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19760 of 2025
RAJKUMAR KUNSARIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ghanshyam Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri A.N. Gupta - GA for respondent/State.
None for respondent No.2, though served.
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (u/s 528 of
BNSS) for quashing the FIR vide Crime No.97/2025 registered by Mahila
Police Station, Bhopal.
According to prosecution story that the complainant lodged a
complaint against the applicant alleging that the applicant called the
complainant to his house on the occasion of his birthday, at that moment
applicant given one tablet which was consumed by her and she became
unconscious then the applicant committed sexual intercourse with her. It is
also mentioned in the FIR that the complainant on the false promise of
marriage committed sexual intercourse with her on number of occasions.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is a married
woman and having two daughters. It is also submitted that marriage of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64550
2 MCRC-19760-2025
prosecutrix was solemnized on 24.4.2013 with Amit. In this regard the
applicant filed FIR, which is lodged by the victim against her husband,
namely, Amit, in which it is clearly mentioned that she has married on
24.4.2013. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amol Bhagwan Nehul
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.10044 of
2024) decided on 26.05.2025 and Nitin B. Nikhare Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Anr. (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.1889/2024 decided on
21.01.2025 and submitted that in identical facts and circumstances, the
Supreme Court has quashed all proceedings against the petitioner therein.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition and prayed for
its dismissal.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amol Bhagwan Nehul (supra) in
para 8 (d) and 9 held as under :-
"(d) There is also no reasonable possibility that the
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 or any woman being
married before and having a child of four years, would
continue to be deceived by the Appellant or maintain a
prolonged association or physical relationship with an
individual who has sexually assaulted and exploited her.
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"
Considering allegations and on perusal of the case diary, it appears that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64550
3 MCRC-19760-2025
complainant/victim has married in the year 2013 and therefore no question arises
of marriage between complainant/victim and applicant. On perusal of the case
diary and the documents produced by the applicant, it is a clear case of consent.
Since the victim was already married with another, therefore, the allegation to
commit rape with the prosecutrix on pretext of marriage is not acceptable.
Perusal of record, it reveals that there was no proximity of false promise of
the repeated acts which have been committed by the petitioner. Since sexual
intercourse is said to have been committed by the petitioner with prosecutrix
without any misconception of fact of false promise of marriage, therefore, offence
under Section 276 (2)(n) of IPC will not be made out against the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and upon
consideration of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the
opinion that no offence is made out against the applicant. Accordingly, in
exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the present application is allowed. The FIR registered as Crime No. 97/2025 at
Mahila Police Station, Bhopal, and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, are hereby quashed so far as they relate to the applicant.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
SM
