Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21045
1 MCRC-9408-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9408 of 2025
VIRENDRA VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ganga Prasad Patel - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri G.S.Thakur - G.A. for the respondent/State.
Shri Manish Rajak - Advocate for the complainant.
"Heard on : 30.04.2025.
Pronounced on : 06.05.2025".
ORDER
This petition under section 528 of BNSS (482 of Cr.P.C.) has been
filed seeking quashing of FIR registered vide Crime No.82/2025 at Police
Station Adhartal, District Jabalpur for the offence under section 69 and
351(2) of BNS.
2. On the basis of the written complaint made by the prosecutrix on
29.1.2025 at Police Station Adhartal, District Jabalpur, Crime No.82/2025
was registered against the applicant for the offence under section 69 and
351(2) of BNS. It is alleged in the FIR that the present applicant by giving
false assurance of marriage to the prosecutrix developed physical relations
with her. The prosecutrix is aged about 32 years and is a widow. Her
husband died in an accident in the year 2021 and thereafter the present
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21045
2 MCRC-9408-2025
applicant, being a friend of her deceased husband, used to call her on mobile
and used to visit her house. The applicant was helping the prosecutrix in
managing various works and as such they became very close and after almost
three months of the death of her husband the applicant used to visit the house
of the prosecutrix and thereafter he disclosed his intention that he liked her
and also proposed her for marriage. The prosecutrix asked him to first seek
permission from his family members and he assured that it had already been
done. They decided to enter into marriage in the month of May 2021 as such
they developed physical relations in between and used to live like husband
and wife, but after staying together for a long time, the applicant refused to
marry her. When the prosecutrix tried to create pressure upon him, he
threatened to kill her. It is also alleged in the complaint that due to the
physical relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix she became
pregnant and delivered a child, who is at present aged about seven months. It
is also alleged that after giving false assurance of marriage the applicant has
been exploiting her physically for the past three years and as such she lodged
FIR against him.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that even if the contents of the FIR
are assumed to be true at its face value then also no case of rape is made out.
Even a case under section 69 of BNS is not made out because he has never
given any false promise of marriage and even otherwise since the
relationship continued for years together with mutual consent so no offence
is made out and, therefore, the applicant cannot be prosecuted.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents have opposed the submissions
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21045
3 MCRC-9408-2025
and submits that since it is alleged that the applicant after giving false
promise of marriage developed physical relationship and prosecutrix has also
given birth to a child, offence under section 69 of BNS is rightly registered
against the applicant and it will be decided during the trial whether the false
promise of marriage had been given or not ?
5. Counsel for the Objector has also supported the stand taken by the
State and submits that merely because prosecutrix and applicant lived in a
relationship for long that does not mean that offence under section 69 of
BNS is not made out and it is not a case of consensual sexual relationship. It
is further submitted that when prosecutrix realized that this relationship
would not be converted into marriage she made a complaint to the police.
6. To rebut the aforesaid submissions, counsel for the applicant submits
that there is no proof available with the prosecution so as to substantiate
about the promise made by the present applicant to the prosecutrix for
marriage. He submits that overall circumstances existing in the case are
required to be seen and it is clear that it is not a case where physical
relationship was developed once or twice but this relationship continued for
years together and after such a long time if such complaint is lodged, the
offence does not fall within the ambit of section 69 of BNS.
7. In reply, counsel for the respondents again opposed the submissions
and submits that if it is alleged by the prosecutrix that relationship was
developed by giving promise of marriage and it in itself is sufficient for
constituting an offence under section 69 of BNS and, therefore, contents of
FIR are sufficient to register the offence. The submission of the counsel for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21045
4 MCRC-9408-2025
the applicant has no substance and, therefore, the petition being
misconceived deserves to be dismissed.
8. I have heard the submissions made by counsel for the parties and also
perused the record.
"Section 69 - Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc.
Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman
without any intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse
with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
9. Relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court and the law
laid down therein the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan
Lal, reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, and the guidelines framed
thereunder to quash the FIR exercising the extraordinary powers provided
under section 482 CrPC, which is almost pari materia to section 528 of
BNSS. However, in the FIR it is alleged that the applicant has developed
physical relations with the prosecutrix in the year 2021 by giving promise of
marriage but developing physical relations in the year 2021, the applicant
and the prosecutrix did not enter into marriage and according to the
allegations the prosecutrix has also given birth to a child, aged about seven
months on the date of lodging the FIR, i.e. 29.1.2025, which clearly reveals
that the relationship continued even after 2021 but the prosecutrix never
made complaint to the police, however, she conceived and gave birth to a
child. Had it been a case in which relationship developed once or twice and
prosecutrix restrained the applicant for further developing physical
relationship between them asking him to first fulfill the promise of marriage,
then it would have been a case of false promise of marriage.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21045
5 MCRC-9408-2025
10. Considering the conduct of the parties it is clear that they were in
relationship but there was no such promise as has been alleged in the report.
When the prosecutrix agreed to enter into marriage in the month of May
2021 and when it was not done in that period, she should not have allowed
the applicant to continue with the relationship, but she did not do so, which
clearly indicates that there was no such condition between them and after
developing relationship and living like husband and wife yet he did not marry
her, the prosecutrix made a complaint to the police and offence u/s 69 and
351(2) of BNS is registered.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in 2024 SCC Online 3471 although
considered the case of 376 IPC on a false promise of marriage but taking
note of the fact and observation made by the Supreme Court it is clear that if
relationship is continued for long then it cannot be presumed that the said
relationship is developed due to false promise of marriage. The observation
made by the Supreme Court is as under :-
"22. 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.
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21045
6 MCRC-9408-2025
***
27. Thus, from the above it appears that it is more of an extra-marital
affair during the aforesaid period without any insistence by the
complainant for getting married to the appellant. The fact that the
complainant continued to have a physical relationship for a long time
without any insistence on marriage would indicate the unlikelihood of
any such promise made by the appellant for marrying her and it rather
indicates that the relationship was a consensual one.
In our opinion, the longer the duration of the physical relationship
between the partners without protest and insistence by the female
partner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual relationship
rather than a relationship based on false promise of marriage by the
male partner and thus, based on misconception of fact".
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Bishwajyoti Chatterjee Vs.
State of West Bengal and another reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 404 , the
Supreme Court again considered the aspect as to what type of relationship
can be considered to be of consensual relationship and what type of evidence
is required to prove that such relationship is consensual. The observation
made by the Supreme Court relying upon another Supreme Court judgment
passed in Uday vs State of Karnataka reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46 observed
in para 17 as under :-
"In the ultimate analysis, the tests laid down by the courts provide at
best guidance to the judicial mind while considering a question of
consent, but the court must, in each case, consider the evidence before it
and the surrounding circumstances, before reaching a conclusion,
because each case has its own peculiar facts which may have a bearing
on the question whether the consent was voluntary, or was given under
a misconception of fact".
13. Further, it is observed by the Supreme Court in the said case as to
when relationship cannot be considered to be of a false promise of marriage.
The observation of the Supreme Court is as under :-
"20. We find that there is a growing tendency of resorting to initiation
of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour. Every consensual
relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21045
7 MCRC-9408-2025
a colour of a false pretext to marry, in the event of a fall out. It is such
lis that amounts to an abuse of process of law, and it is under such
circumstances, that we deem fit to terminate the proceedings at the
stage of charge itself".
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Thus it is clear from the aforesaid enunciation of law and
observations made by the Supreme Court so as to substantiate the
relationship between the parties cannot be considered to be developed on a
false pretext of marriage.
15. In the present case also, considering the existing factual
circumstances as has been narrated by the prosecutrix in the FIR and if the
same is considered to be true at its face value, it is clear that the said
relationship is not on a false promise of marriage and as such material
ingredients of sections 69 of BNS are completely missing and this
relationship cannot be considered to be a relationship developed on a false
promise of marriage and merely such allegations cannot be made basis for
initiating proceedings because there can be certain reasons showing
bitterness in the relationship between the parties and as such without there
being any cogent evidence available criminal prosecution that too under
section 69 of BNS cannot be initiated. I am not convinced with a
submissions made by counsel for the respondents, but, on the other hand,
looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the view taken
by the Supreme Court, as has been quoted hereinabove, in my opinion it is a
false malicious prosecution and no material ingredients of section 69 BNS is
available and as such FIR, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of Bhajanlal (supra) can be quashed. Accordingly, FIR
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21045
8 MCRC-9408-2025
registered vide Crime No.82/2025 at Police Station Adhartal, District
Jabalpur for the offence under section 69 and 351(2) of BNS and all
consequential proceedings in pursuance to the said FIR is hereby quashed.
16. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, since
the applicant and the prosecutrix had been living as a husband and wife and
from their relationship it is alleged by the prosecutrix that she gave birth to a
child, then appropriate proceedings for claiming maintenance and other
reliefs can be initiated by her but prosecution is not permitted unless material
ingredients of the respective offence under which offence is registered are
available.
17. The Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
HS
