Madras High Court
J.Raja Sekar vs The Inspector Of Police on 14 October, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Crl.O.P.Nos.24153 & 23750 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.Nos.24153 & 23750 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.No.16501 of 2025
1.J.Raja Sekar
2.R.Santhi
3.J.T.Arasu @ J.Thirunavukkarasu
... Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.24153 of 2025
R.Bharath Kumar ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.23750 of 2025
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police
Tiruvallur AWPS
Tiruvallur District
2.V.Vincy Solomina ... Respondents in both OPs
Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 528
of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR dated
06.08.2025 in Cr.No.23 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent and quash
the same.
In both OPs
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi
For Respondents : Mr.KMD.Muhilan, APP for R1
Mr.C.Balaji for R2
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 12:24:28 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.24153 & 23750 of 2025
COMMON ORDER
Both the captioned Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to call
for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR dated 06.08.2025 in
Cr.No.23 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
2. The petition in Crl.O.P.No.23750 of 2025 has been filed by the A1
and the petition in Crl.O.P.No.24153 of 2025 has been filed by the A2 to A4
in Cr.No.23 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 69, 127(2), 137, 318(2)
and 351(2) of BNS, 2023.
3. Since the petitions for quashment relates to the very same crime
number, this Court heard both the petitions and is inclined to dispose of the
same by way of this common order.
4. The crux of the allegations against the accused is A1 has promised
the defacto complainant to marry and had sexual intercourse several times,
as a result, she had become pregnant and aborted thrice and refused to
marry. Thereafter, the same was informed to the parents of the A1 and the
parents also threatened the petitioner. Hence, complaint.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 12:24:28 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.24153 & 23750 of 2025
love affair, merely, because the marriage has not happened, that cannot be
an offence.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
7. It is relevant to note that the very Section 69 of BNS, 2023 is
brought under the New Act, viz., BNS, 2023. Section 69 contemplates that
while not every broken promise is rape, intentional deceit should not go
unpunished. Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 reads as
follows:
"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.”
8. Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023
criminalizes sexual intercourse not amounting to rape that occurs through
deceitful means, such as a false promise to marry that was never intended to
be fulfilled. The punishment for this offense is imprisonment for up to ten
years and a fine.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 12:24:28 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.24153 & 23750 of 2025
9. On a perusal of the FIR, it would indicate that the very allegations
are clearly as against A1, therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to
quash the FIR as against the A1. Accordingly, the petition in
Crl.O.P.No.23750 of 2025 stands dismissed. Let the Investigating Officer
file the final report expeditiously as possible.
10. As far as the family members are concerned, the only allegations
against them are they did not agree for the marriage and also threatened.
Except bald allegations, no specific allegation are made against them. Even
the entire allegations made against the other accused is taken as proof, the
same will not constitute as offence. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer the
judgment reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 110 (Veena Mittal vs State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors), wherein, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“ 6..... It is well-settled that at the stage when the High Court
considers a petition for quashing criminal proceedings under
Section 482 of the CrPC, the allegations in the FIR must be
read as they stand and it is only if on the face of the allegations
that no offence, as alleged, has been made out, that the Court
may be justified in exercising its jurisdiction to quash.....”
11. Such view of the matter, the FIR in Cr.No. 23 of 2025 as against
the accused 2 to 4/petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.24153 of 2025 alone stands
quashed. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Consequently,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 12:24:28 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.24153 & 23750 of 2025
connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
14.10.2025
dhk
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Tiruvallur AWPS
Tiruvallur District
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
dhk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 12:24:28 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.24153 & 23750 of 2025
Crl.O.P.Nos.24153 & 23750 of 2025
14.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 12:24:28 pm )
