Page No.# 1/12 GAHC010183172026 2026:GAU-AS:12460 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1191/2026 SRI RAJU RONGPHAR SON OF- SHRI SARTHE RONGPHAR, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF- BALIJAN, POST OFFICE- KARAGAON, POLICE STATION- KHATKHATI, DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT- KHARUBANDHA POLICE OUTPOST, POST OFFICE- HATSINGIMARI, POLICE STATION- SOUTH SALMAR, DIST. SOUTH SALMARA, MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 783127 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2:SMT FREBOLIN BRAHMA DAUGHTER OF- SRI JOBINDRA BRAHMA RESIDENT OF- VILLAGE RIHAJAN HONGKRAM POST OFFICE- BAITHALANGSO POLICE STATION- BAITHALANGSO PIN CODE- 782450. DISTRICT- WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M P CHOUDHURY, MR. C HANSE,MR. S BATHARI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. R BORA(R2) Page No.# 2/12 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 28.08.2026 Heard Mr. M P Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Also heard Mr. R Borah, learned counsel for the informant. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Kheroni PS Case No. 10/2026, registered on 01.03.2026, under Sections 69/131/296/324 of the BNS, 2023 as well as the charge-sheet submitted in connection with the said case against the petitioner under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, together with the case being PRC Case No. 57/2026 instituted in pursuant thereof and which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Hamren, West Karbi Anglong along with the orders passed in the said PRC Case No. 57 of 2026. 3. The case of the petitioner is that one FIR was lodged on 01.03.2026, by one Smt. Frebolin Brahma stating inter-alia that she was in love relationship Page No.# 3/12 with the petitioner, since 2022 and that the petitioner had promised to marry her and that they were in a relationship. It is further stated in the FIR that on 05.04.2025, the petitioner with the intention to get married with the alleged victim, took her to Guwahati from her home and that physical relationship was entered into by the petitioner and the alleged victim. It is also stated that thereafter, the petitioner had taken her to the police quarters and there also she was subjected to physical relationship for a period of 7 months. The alleged victim then stated that whenever she raised the topic of marriage, the accused person, i.e., the petitioner used to threaten and assault her in the Police Quarters. She, thereafter stated that on subsequent dates too, she was assaulted and that the petitioner had injured her by going to her place, with the further allegation that family members of the petitioner had also abused her by going to her room. On completion of the investigation, the Police had submitted charge-sheet on 24.07.2026, vide Charge-Sheet No. 24/2026. Subsequent thereto, the case was listed before the JMFC, Hamren, West Karbi Anglong, and cognizance of the offence under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 was taken against the petitioner on 31.07.2026. 4. Mr. M P Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant case was although registered under Section 69 along with other Sections Page No.# 4/12 of the BNS 2023, but the charge-sheet was submitted by the Police and the petitioner was only charged under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023. He submits that under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, it is provided that whoever by deceitful means or by making promises to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, establishes sexual relationship with the woman and which does not amount to the offence of rape, shall be punished with the prescribed punishment. He submits that the promise without any intention to marry the victim, should be there from the very initial stage. He however submits that if the promise with the intention to marry was there but it was broken later by the person for any reason whatsoever, the offence will not be established under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023. In the instant case, he submits that the petitioner had in fact, promised to marry the victim with a clear intention thereof, and the same is writ large in the FIR itself, as it has been stated therein that the petitioner is known to the victim since 10.10.2022, and that the petitioner fell in love with her and had promised to marry her. There was no averment in the FIR that the petitioner had given a false promise of marriage to her and took advantage of the situation and had entered into physical relationship with her. He further submits that from 10.10.2022 to 05.04.2025, there was no allegation against the petitioner by the victim and that they were having the relationship and had also entered into physical relationship. The learned counsel has also Page No.# 5/12 placed the order passed in the bail application, which although cannot be considered in this petition, but only to the extent to see the victim’s statement that has been recorded by the Court under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, and it is seen that the victim had stated before the Magistrate that they were living as husband and wife and that the petitioner had also introduced her before his colleagues/officials as his wife. As such, he submits that ingredients of Section 69 of BNS 2023, is not meted out in this Case. 5. On the other hand, Mr. R J Baruah, learned APP for the State submits that with the false promise to marry, the petitioner had entered into physical relationship with the victim as could be seen from the bare perusal of the FIR. He has also placed the charge-sheet, wherein it is stated that petitioner had taken the victim from her parental house with the promise to marry her and started living together and maintained physical relationship with her and that after 7 months, the petitioner refused to marry her. 6. Mr. R Borah, learned counsel for the informant has also stated that there was a false promise to marry and the petitioner had taken advantage of the situation and had established physical relationship with her and on that count, Page No.# 6/12 the same resulted in the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels and I have carefully gone through the records. 8. A simple reading of the FIR itself shows that the petitioner and the victim were in love relationship and the petitioner had promised to marry her way back in the year 2022. It is also in the submission of the learned counsel for the victim that there was some ceremony carried on between the petitioner and the victim as per the local practice, which is done before someone gets married, to the exact sense of the term. As such, it is seen that there is no false promise to marry. In fact, the petitioner wanted to marry the victim, but it is seen from the FIR that later on, i.e., after many years, there were quarrels and the petitioner had deferred his marriage with the victim. It is also stated in the FIR that the victim had gone with the petitioner to different places and they had entered into physical relationship with each other. It is not seen that the petitioner, by using deceitful means or by making false promise of marriage, had forced her to enter into any physical relationship with him. It is a normal situation where a promise to marry a person can change with time and the decision to marry can change Page No.# 7/12 with certain happenings or occurrences. It is a different aspect that with the intention not to marry from the very first instance, a person, deceiving the companion, establishes physical relationship. However, it seems that it is not the case here. It is also noticed in the FIR that the victim had chronologically stated the facts wherein, it is seen that after 10.10.2022, there was no allegation against the petitioner levelled by the victim and that subsequent to 05.04.2025, i.e. after a period of almost three years, she had levelled allegations against him and later on, she said that when she initiated the topic of marriage, the petitioner used to threaten and assault her. This particular fact cannot be considered to have happened before 05.04.2025, when she first alleged misdeeds by the petitioner. 9. Further, in the charge-sheet submitted in the instant case also, it is seen that the Investigating Officer had recorded the statements of the witnesses and it is found that the petitioner had eloped with the victim, from the residence of the victim, with a promise to marry and that they were living together and maintained physical relationship and that after living for 7 (seven) months in the police quarters, when the victim requested him for a legal marriage, the petitioner is stated to have got angry and started quarreling with the victim. This statement itself shows that it was later, in point of time, that the petitioner Page No.# 8/12 had quarreled with her, over the subject of legal marriage. Even the statement of refusing the marriage is not there, either in the FIR or in the charge-sheet. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of cases, one being Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra and Another; reported in (2024) 11 SCC 398, had held that the false promise of marriage should exist from the very initial stage and only on that count, Section 69 of BNS, 2023 would be attracted. 11. In yet another decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 675, had held as under:- “18. ... There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the Accused; and whether the consent involved was given after wholly understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the Accused, and not solely on account of misrepresentation made to her by the Accused, or where an Accused on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having Page No.# 9/12 every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated differently. An accused can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives. **** **** **** ***** **** 21. Hence, it is evident that there must be adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time i.e. at the initial stage itself, the Accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim. There may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances. The "failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does not always amount to misconception of fact. In order to come within the meaning of the term "misconception of fact", the fact must have an immediate relevance". Section 90 Indian Penal Code cannot be called into aid in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and fasten criminal liability on the other, unless the court is assured of the fact that from the very beginning, the Accused had never really intended to marry her.” 12. In this context, Section 28 of BNS, 2023 (Section 90 of the IPC) becomes relevant. Section 28 of the BNS, 2023 is reproduced below:- “28. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception Page No.# 10/12 - A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Sanhita, a) if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; or b) if the consent is given by a person who, from mental illness, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or c) unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.” 13. A bare perusal of the said provision makes it amply clear that the factors set out in the first part of Section 28 (a), BNS are from the point of view of the victim and the second part of the said provision is from the point of view of the accused. It envisages that the accused too should have knowledge or has reason to believe that the consent was given by the victim, in consequence of fear of injury or misconception of fact. Thus, the second part lays emphasis on the knowledge or reasonable belief of the person, who obtains the tainted Page No.# 11/12 consent. The requirements of both the parts should be cumulatively satisfied. In other words, the court has to see whether the person giving the consent had given it under fear of injury or misconception of fact and the court should also be satisfied that the person doing the act i.e. the alleged offender, is conscious of the fact or should have reason to think that but for the fear or misconception, the consent would not have been given. 14. In the instant case, the informant was a major and she has been in relationship with the petitioner since many years and she had adequate intelligence and maturity to understand the significance and the morality associated with the act she was consenting to. In the normal circumstances she will be also conscious of the fact that her marriage may not take place owing to various considerations. Further it will be difficult to impute upon the accused, the knowledge of the fact that informant had consented as a consequence of a misconception of fact, that had arisen from his false promise to marry her. There was no material to prove conclusively, that the petitioner had never intended to marry the informant. Furthermore it is also an admitted position that the informant had left her home voluntarily, of her own free will, to get married to the petitioner. She stayed with the petitioner at a number of places as husband and wife and it cannot be said that she was incapable of understanding the Page No.# 12/12 complications and issues surrounding her marriage to the petitioner. She did not raise any objection during all these years, when she continued with the relationship and made no complaints to anyone. The informant voluntarily became intimate with the petitioner as could be seen from the contents of the FIR. If the informant went with the petitioner to marry and stay with him, this court fails to understand on what basis the allegation of “false promise of marriage” could be raised by the informant. This court also fails to comprehend the circumstances in which a charge of deceit/rape can be levelled against the petitioner, in light of the aforesaid facts. 15. In view of the findings narrated above, this Court finds it fit to quash the First Information Report lodged on 01.03.2026, registered as Kheroni PS Case No. 10/2026, as well as the charge-sheet being Charge Sheet No. 24/2026 filed on 24.07.2026, as well as the PRC Case No. 57/2026, pending in the Court of JMFC, Hamren, West Karbi Anglong as well as the subsequent orders passed therein. As Such, the said FIR, the Charge-sheet, the PRC case as well the orders passed therein, stands quashed. 16 . The Criminal Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant