JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY , J. I.A. No. 7566 of 2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition. 3. Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. being Chaibasa Mahila P.S. Case No. 16 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 493, 376(2)(n), 312 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner established physical relationship with the victim on the promise of marriage and the relationship continued for four years. In the meanwhile, the informant became pregnant but medicine was administered to her for miscarriage which resulted in miscarriage but ultimately the petitioner did not marry the informant and abetted her to commit suicide. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kunal Chatterjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 1703 that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken note of the fact that the said Court in several cases has held that promise to marriage and the subsequent physical relationship between the two with consent would not amount to rape inter-alia in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 and in the case of Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand , reported in (2020) 10 SCC 108 . It is next submitted that this case also, is a case of consensual sexual relationship between two adult persons and there is no allegation that the miscarriage was done without the consent of the victim. Hence, it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 6. It is next submitted that this case also, is a case of consensual sexual relationship between two adult persons and there is no allegation that the miscarriage was done without the consent of the victim. Hence, it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. , reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 1667 , para -18 of which reads as under:- “18. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case where there is a promise of marriage, the Court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls in the ambit of cheating or deception.” And submits that in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner had no intention to marry at any time, particularly at the time of promising to marry the victim, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is next submitted that the parties have also compromised their dispute and filed an interlocutory application no. 15433 of 2025, which is supported by the victim on oath, wherein the victim has categorically mentioned that the relationship between the petitioner and the victim was a consensual relationship. Therefore, it is submitted that continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition but the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the informant has no objection if the entire criminal proceeding is quashed as the informant is also not desirous of prosecuting the case against the petitioner. 8. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had no intention to marry the informant at the time of promising to marry her and subsequently establishing physical relationship with her. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation that the miscarriage of the child of the victim happened without her consent and in the absence of such allegation, this Court is of the considered view that the offence punishable under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out; even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the sine-qua-none to constitute the said offence is that a person must commit suicide but in this case, nobody has committed suicide, hence the abetment of suicide does not arise. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same provides for punishment of man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage and with such belief making cohabitation with a woman. 13. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner induced any belief of the informant of any lawful marriage. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner promised to marry the informant. Promise to marry the informant simpliciter, cannot amount to deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage. 14. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner induced any belief of the informant of any lawful marriage. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner promised to marry the informant. Promise to marry the informant simpliciter, cannot amount to deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage. 14. Under Such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 15. In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offences in respect of which the F.I.R. of this case has been registered is made out even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the F.I.R. being Chaibasa Mahila P.S. Case No. 16 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 493, 376(2)(n), 312 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 16. Accordingly, the F.I.R. being Chaibasa Mahila P.S. Case No. 16 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 493, 376(2)(n), 312 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 17. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. 18. Consequently, the interlocutory application no. 15433 of 2025 is disposed of accordingly.