Madras High Court
N.Harikrishnan vs State Rep By on 23 April, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 17.04.2025
Pronounced on : 23.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.Nos.21373 of 2023 and 20254 of 2022
and
Crl.MP.Nos.14711 of 2023 and 13308 of 2022
N.Harikrishnan .. Petitioner/A1 in Crl.O.P.No.21373 of 2023
1.N.Kalirajan
2.N.Chitra .. Petitioners/A2 & A3 in Crl.O.P.No.20254 of 2022
Versus
1. State Rep by
The Inspector of Police
W32-All Women Police Station
Madipakkam, Chennai
(Crime No.10 of 2022)
2. XXXX (Defacto complainant)
.. Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps.
Common Prayer:- Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records in Crime No.10 of 2022 dated
25.07.2022 pending on the file of the first respondent police and to quash the
same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:31:51 pm )
2
Both OPs
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Peranban
For Respondents : Mr.R.Venkatesa Perumal for R1
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj
and Mr.S.V.Jayakumar for R2
COMMON ORDER
These petitions have been filed seeking to quash the F.I.R. in Crime
No.2 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent police, for the offences
punishable under Sections 376, 417, 406, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC.
2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21373 of 2023 is arrayed as A1. The
petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.20254 of 2022 are A2 and A3/brother and mother
of the A1.
3. The crux of the allegations in the FIR are that the defacto
complainant/second respondent an MCA graduate working as software
engineer at Bank of America had met the A1 who was also a software
engineer working at SI systems in a conference. A1 proposed the defacto
complainant and thereafter, they were in love affair. A1 took the defacto
complainant to Tirupathi and exchanged rings and promised that he will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:31:51 pm )
marry her. Further, on 03.10.2020 against her wish, he forcibly took her and
had sexual intercourse with her and convinced that it is common between
husband and wife and thereafter, they had sexual intercourse for several
times. Subsequently, A1 had demanded 100 sovereigns and Rs.10 lakhs for
marriage which ended in quarrel and thereafter, the A2 and A3 abused her.
On intervention of the police, A1 convinced the defacto complainant and
started as husband and wife and had sexual intercourse. During January 2021,
the family of A1 threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences.
Thereby, a complaint was given and FIR was registered in Cr.No.10 of 2022
for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 406, 294(b) and 506(i)
of IPC and now the same is sought to be quashed by the petitioners/accused1
to 3.
4. Though initially the petitions were opposed by the defacto
complainant by filing counter, later, she has filed an affidavit before this
Court stating that due to intervention of well wishers, she has received a sum
of Rs.12 lakhs as compensation by way of Demand Draft No.000690 dated
19.03.2025, HDFC Bank. Therefore, she has filed an affidavit expressing no
objection to quash the FIR in Cr.No.10 of 2022 dated 25.07.2022 against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:31:51 pm )
accused 1 to 3/petitioners herein.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
6. At the outset, this Court is of the view that the offences of serious
nature, compounding is not permissible, however, taking note of the
allegations pressed in the FIR, this Court is inclined to dispose of the matters
on merits.
7. Perusal of the FIR makes it very clear that the defacto complainant
is not an illiterate or rustic person. The very allegations raised by her indicate
that she is a MCA graduate working as a software engineer at Bank of
America and she had affair with the A1 and both have gone to extent of
exchanging the rings and started living as husband and wife and had sexual
intercourse on many occasions. Though it is alleged that A1 has deceived her
and had sexual intercourse, when the FIR carefully perused, it clearly
indicates that they had sexual intercourse as husband and wife for multiple
times from the year 2020 to 2022. Thereafter, it appears that relationship got
strained, they fell apart and as a result, the complaint came to be filed as
against the A1 and his brother and mother.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:31:51 pm )
8. It is relevant to note that the defacto complainant is a fully grown
woman and working as a software engineer and consented to sexual
intercourse. According to her, as the accused promised to marry her, she
continued to indulge in sexual intercourse till their relationship become
strained. Therefore, it cannot be stated that only because of deception played
by A1, she had succumbed to such a pressure. To bring the case within the
ambit of misconception of fact, there must be materials to show that bad faith
or deception was present from the very inception. Whereas, the entire
allegations in the FIR clearly indicate that the defacto complainant and the
A1 had indulged in sexual intercourse for several times and lived as husband
and wife for considerable period. In fact, defacto complainant also consented
to have sexual intercourse for many times. In such a situation, to bring the act
of A1 under the ambit of misconception of facts, there must be evidences or
atleast some materials, which is not available on perusing the entire
materials.
9. The very factum that both were living as husband and wife and had
sexual intercourse many times indicate that the alleged deception from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:31:51 pm )
very inception is absent. Therefore, merely, because the relationship later
strained due to some or other reasons and they fell apart, in such a situation,
it cannot be held that such consent would fall within the ambit of
misconception of fact to hold that offence of rape is attracted.
10. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608, wherein, in paragraphs 16, 21 and 23, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“16. Where the promise to marry is false and the
intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself
was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her
to engage in sexual relations, there is a “misconception of fact”
that vitiates the woman's “consent”. On the other hand, a
breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To
establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have
had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it.
***
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:31:51 pm )
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 of the IPC has occurred.
***
23. Without entering into a detailed analysis of the
content of the WhatsApp messages sent by the appellant and the
words alleged to have been spoken, it is apparent that none of
the offences set out above are made out. The messages were not
in public view, no assault occurred, nor was the appellant in
such a position so as to dominate the will of the complainant.
Therefore, even if the allegations set out by the complainant
with respect to the WhatsApp messages and words uttered are
accepted on their face, no offence is made out under SC/ST Act
(as it then stood). The allegations on the face of the FIR do not
hence establish the commission of the offences alleged.“
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in AIR 2021 SC 1405 has held in paragraphs 9 and 11 as follows:
“9. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), while dealing
with a similar situation, the principles of law which must govern
a situation like the present were enunciated in the following
observations:
“Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the
maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide
by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in
sexual relations, there is a “misconception of fact” that vitiates
the woman's “consent”. On the other hand, a breach of a
promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:31:51 pm )
false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no
intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it...?
***
11. Bearing in mind the tests which have been enunciated
in the above decision, we are of the view that even assuming
that all the allegations in the FIR are correct for the purposes of
considering the application for quashing under Section 482 of
CrPC, no offence has been established. There is no allegation to
the effect that the promise to marry given to the second
respondent was false at the inception. On the contrary, it would
appear from the contents of the FIR that there was a subsequent
refusal on the part of the appellant to marry the second
respondent which gave rise to the registration of the FIR. On
these facts, we are of the view that the High Court was in error
in declining to entertain the petition under Section 482 of CrPC
on the basis that it was only the evidence at trial which would
lead to a determination as to whether an offence was
established.“
12. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Venkatesh and Ors Vs. State
of Karnataka and Ors dated 13.01.2022 in Criminal Petition No.5865 of
2021 has held in paragraph 7 and 8 as follows:
“7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a
Single Bench judgment of the High Court of Judicature at
Madras, in the case of K.U.Prabhu Raj Vs. State by Sub
Inspector of Police, A.W.P.S. Tambaram and another reported
in 2012-3-L.W.770 wherein, the Court has held at paragraphs
16 and 17 as under:
“16. A cursory perusal of the above provision would
make it clear that there are atleast three essential ingredients
constituting an offence of cheating which should be made out
from the materials available on record. They are as follows:-
(1) Deception of any person;
(2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:31:51 pm )
(i) To deliver any property to any person or;
(ii) To consent that any person shall retain any property,
or and
(3) Intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or
property.-
17. The learned counsel for the second respondent would
further submit that the offence involved in this case falls within
the ambit of the third limb of Section 415 I.P.C as enumerated
above. According to the learned counsel, but for the promise
made by the petitioner, the daughter of the second respondent
would have married someone-else and settled down in her life.
Thus, according to him, the petitioner has committed a clear
offence of cheating. In my considered opinion, it is not so. As
has been held by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
in Abhoy Pradhan v. State of W.B case (cited supra), mere
promise to marry and later on withdrawing the said promise
will not amount to an offence of cheating at all. On such false
promise to marry, the person to whom such promise was made
should have done or omitted to do something that he would not
done or omitted to do but for the deception. In this case,
absolutely, there are no materials available on record to show
that because of the promise made by the petitioner, the daughter
of the second respondent has done anything or omitted to do
something which has the tendency to cause damage or harm to
the body or mind or reputation or property of the daughter of
the second respondent. In the absence of the same, the entire
allegations found in the records, in my considered 8 opinion,
would not make out an offence under Section 417 or 420 I.P.C.,
at all.“
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also has categorically held
in the case of S.W.PALANITKAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF
BIHAR AND ANOTHER reported in (2002) 1 SCC 241 at
paragraph No.11 that mere breach of contract cannot give rise
to any criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:31:51 pm )
dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the
transaction and the time when the offence is said to have been
committed. Here in this case, petitioner No.1 is said to have
promised to marry respondent No.2, but failed to marry her. In
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, respondent
No.2 has failed to make out a case of criminal intention of
petitioner No.1 from the beginning for cheating the
complainant. That apart, the aforesaid judgment of High Court
of judicature at Madras is applicable to the case where the
promise of marriage will not attract 9 Section 420 of IPC. This
Court has held in Crl.R.P.No.233/2020 dated 24.02.2020 in the
case of Sri.D.Ramesh Sinha Vs. State of Karnataka that as a
promise of marriage and breach of contract will not attract the
provisions of Sections 417 and 420 of IPC. Such being the case,
continuing the proceedings or investigation against the
petitioners is abuse of process of law and therefore, the same is
liable to be quashed.“
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mandar Deepak Pawar Vs. The
State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No.442 of 2022, dated 27.07.2022
has held as follows:
“The parties chose to have physical relationship without
marriage for a considerable period of time. For some reason,
the parties fell apart. It can happen both before or after
marriage. Thereafter also three years passed when respondent
No.2 decided to register a FIR.
We are fortified to adopt this course of action by the
judicial view in (2019) 9 SCC 608 titled “Pramod Suryabhan
Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.” where in the factual
scenario where complainant was aware that there existed
obstacles in marrying the accused and still continued to engage
in sexual relations, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR. A
distinction was made between a false promise to marriage
which is given on understanding by the maker that it will be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:31:51 pm )
broken and a breach of promise which is made in good faith but
subsequently not fulfilled. This was in the context of Section 375
Explanation 2 and Section 90 of the IPC, 1860. The Criminal
appeal is accordingly allowed.”
14. Considering the above settled position of law and the very
allegations in the FIR itself indicate that out of strained relationship, FIR has
been filed not only against the A1 but also against his brother and mother.
That apart, now, the defacto complainant has also filed an affidavit
expressing no objection in quashing the FIR as against the accused 1 to
3/petitioners herein. She has also received a sum of Rs.12 lakhs. In view of
the above, continuing the FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and a
futile exercise and it is nothing but harassment of the petitioners.
15. Such view of the matter, the Criminal Original Petitions are
allowed and the FIR in Crime No.10 of 2022, pending on the file of the first
respondent police stands quashed. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
23.04.2025
dhk
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:31:51 pm )
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
dhk
To
1. The Inspector of Police
W32-All Women Police Station
Madipakkam, Chennai
2. The Public Prosecutor
Madras High Court.
Crl.O.P.Nos.21373 of 2023 and 20254 of 2022
23.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 02:31:51 pm )
