[2025:JHHC:11820] 1 Cr. M.P. No.637 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.637 of 2025 ------ Rajesh Kumar Munda, aged about 34 years, son of Dandu Munda, resident of Netuwa, Hariharpur, PO and PS- Haripur, District Ramgarh. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Chander, Advocate Ms. Manjusha Priya, Advocate (both through V.C.) Ms. Khushboo Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita though in the cause-title of the petition it has been mentioned that this application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the FIR of Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No.368 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is a constable with JAP-7, Hazaribagh and he came in contact with the victim who is also a lady constable with Jharkhand Police posted in JAP-9, Sahibganj. While taking training, there was exchange of mobile number between them. The petitioner represented to the victim that he is unmarried and is in love with the victim and expressed his desire to marry the victim. The petitioner established [2025:JHHC:11820] 2 Cr. M.P. No.637 of 2025 physical relationship with the victim in July, 2019 and such physical relationship continued for five years; as and when the victim was coming home after taking leave and the petitioner was simultaneously taking leave. The physical relationship used to be established in the house of the victim in her village. The petitioner used to establish physical relationship with the victim all the time with the promise of marriage and he promised that he will send his parents to talk about their marriage, to the house of the victim but ultimately the victim could know that the petitioner is going to marry with another women and the date of his marriage is fixed on 11.07.2024. On the basis of the written report submitted by the victim, police registered the said Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No.368 of 2024 on 09.07.2024. It is submitted at the Bar that the investigation of the case is still going on. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in MANU SC 1142 2019 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had held that 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. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had no intention of marrying the victim at the time of making the promise of marrying her. It is then submitted that admittedly, both the petitioner and the victim are major persons and no force was used in establishing the physical relationship between them. Hence, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is [2025:JHHC:11820] 3 Cr. M.P. No.637 of 2025 submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand submits that the case is at its initial stage and the investigation of the case is going on. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed at this stage. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 1405, para-11 of which reads as under:- “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. (Emphasis supplied)” the principle of law has been settled that a breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise and to establish a false promise, the maker should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, the informant/victim contends that she agreed for the physical relationship with the petitioner upon promise made by the petitioner to marry her but there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner ever refused to marry her or had no intention to marry her at any point of time. [2025:JHHC:11820] 4 Cr. M.P. No.637 of 2025 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner of having no intention to marry the victim at the time of making the promise to marry her; even if the entire allegations made in the FIR against the petitioner is 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. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the FIR of Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No.368 of 2024 will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this is a fit case where the FIR of Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No.368 of 2024 be quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the FIR of Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No.368 of 2024 is quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 10. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petitioner is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17th of April, 2025 AFR/ Saroj