Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010140022026 2026:GAU-AS:14038 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./344/2026 DEBASISH DAS S/O DEBABRATA DAS, R/O SUBASH ROAD, MAYAPURI, BONGAIGAON, P.S. AND P.O.BONGAIGAON, DISTRICT BONGAIGAON. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Page No.# 2/9 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. S. Biswas, Advocate Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. SH Bora, learned APP Date on which judgment was reserved :NA Date of pronouncement of judgment :22.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : operative part of the judgment?:NA Whether the full judgment has been :Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) (J. Shamima Jahan) Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. SH Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application filed under Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.06.2026 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.4, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Misc Case No.84/2026 arising out of Sessions Case No. 94/2026. By the said order, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 250 of the BNSS, 2023 with the Page No.# 3/9 prayer to discharge him from the charge under Section 69 of BNS, 2023 was rejected. 3. The case of the petitioner is that an FIR was lodged on 21.02.2025 before the Officer-In-Charge of Panbazar, Women Police Station by the alleged victim stating inter alia that she got friendly with the petitioner as they were working in the same office and that the petitioner started calling her and messaging her. She further stated that the petitioner proposed her for marriage and that one day on the pretext of taking her for shopping, the petitioner took her to his room and when she reached his room, the petitioner committed bad act upon her and took photos and videos. The informant further stated that the petitioner used to force her to make video calls without wearing her clothes and on the pretext of marriage, the petitioner had established physical relationship with her for multiple times and also that she was forced to take tablets for termination of her pregnancy. 4. On receipt of the said FIR, the All Women Police Station had registered the same as All Women Police Station Case No. 22/2025 against the petitioner under Section 69 of BNS, 2023. It is the further case of the petitioner that on completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the petitioner under Section 69 of BNS, 2023 vide charge sheet No. 23/2025 dated 30.04.2025. In the said charge sheet, the informant and the police personnel of All Women Police Station were made the witnesses. 5. On completion of necessary procedures under the law, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 4, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati took up the case for framing of charge. The petitioner had filed an application before the said Court for discharging him from the charges but the learned Trial Court on 16.06.2026 had dismissed the application on the following grounds: Page No.# 4/9 i) upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer found the prima facie case and submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS,2023. ii) the requirement of law was seen to the effect that if the materials disclosed a reasonable ground for presuming the involvement of the petitioner, the matter must proceed to trial. iii) the FIR alleged that the petitioner took intimate photographs and videos of the victim and compelled her to participate in sexually explicit video calls showing her private parts and threatened her that he will circulate the intimate photographs in the social media. iv) the statement of the victim discloses that video calls were made to her and she was compelled to expose her body and that sexual relationship was established on the assurance of marriage. v) the allegations made in the FIR can be true or false and the same can be determined only after adducing evidence during the trial. vi) acceptance of defence story would require appreciation of evidence and determination of disputed questions of facts, which is stated to be impermissible at the stage of framing of charge. vii) on the cumulative consideration of the FIR as well as the statement of the victim together with the charge sheet, the application filed by the petitioner for discharge was rejected. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the contents of the FIR does not disclose that there was a promise to marry on the part of the petitioner and that the victim was under a misconception and that she entered into physical relationship with the petitioner. He has placed the statement of the Page No.# 5/9 victim recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. as well as her statements recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. He submits that before the police, the victim stated clearly that there was a love relationship between her and the petitioner and that video calls were exchanged between the parties, wherein she was forced to show her private parts but at no point of time, it was stated before the Police that petitioner had falsely given his promise to marry. He further submits that the victim had not even stated a single sentence during her statement recorded by the Magistrate that petitioner had at any point of time promised her for marriage. He as such submits that there was no materials showing that Sections 69 of BNS, 2023 is fulfilled. To substantiate his case, he placed reliance on the following judgments: i) Yedla Srinivasa Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Reported in (2006) 11 SCC 615. ii) Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana Reported in (2013) 7 SCC 675 iii) Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharastra Reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 iv) Asim Shariff Vs. NIA Reported in (2019) 7 SCC 148 v) Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani Vs. The State of Gujarat & Anr. Reported in 2026 INSC 987 vi) Bhaskar Basumatary Vs. The State of Assam and Anr Reported in [2023] 4 GauLT 354 vii) Pankaj Khataniar @ Kataniar Vs. The State of Assam And Anr. Reported in [2023] 5 GauLT 526 7. On the other hand, Ms. SH Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Page No.# 6/9 the State submits that in the FIR lodged by the informant, the informant clearly stated that the petitioner had proposed her for marriage and that she having agreed to the proposal had entered into physical relationship with the petitioner multiple times. She stated that had there been no proposal from the petitioner, she would not have entered into such acts. She also submitted that the victim in her statement before the police had stated that whenever she tells the petitioner that she will complain to the police, the petitioner use to tell her that he will marry her. She had also stated that the victim in her statement before the Magistrate had stated in clear terms that petitioner had forcibly established sexual intercourse with her. She as such submits that ingredient of Section 69 of BNS is well attracted in the instant case and that the evidence to that effect would be placed only during the trial of the case and not at this stage of framing of charge. Further, Mr. U. Choudhury, learned Counsel appears for the informant in assistance to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted the following judgments to substantiate the case on behalf of the prosecution: i) Ashish Chadha Vs. Asha Kumari and Anr. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 680 ii) State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta Reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539 iii) Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Anr. Reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 8. I have heard the Counsel and also gone through the records. 9. It is provided under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. that if on consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after Page No.# 7/9 hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharged the accused and record his reasons for so doing. In the instant case, it is seen that the FIR was lodged by the victim and the same was registered under Section 69 of BNS, 2023. In the said FIR, it was clearly stipulated by the informant that the petitioner had proposed her for marriage and that thereafter the petitioner and the victim had entered into physical intimacy as well as other actions as narrated by the victim. It is also stated in the FIR that on the pretext of marriage, the petitioner established physical relationship with the victim for multiple times and that tablets were given to her for termination of pregnancy. However, there is a difference between the proposal for marriage and the promise to marry. At this stage, Section 69 of BNS, 2023 be quoted here-in-below: “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.” 10. It is clear from the aforesaid provision that if a person by deceitful means or by making false promise to marry without any intention to marry, has sexual intercourse with the victim, then he will be held liable and will be punished with the punishment prescribed. The main ingredient of Section 69 is that the person should use deceitful means or make false promise to marry. 11. A bare perusal of the FIR does not show that the petitioner had promised that he will marry the victim. He had only proposed her for marriage and then the victim had indulged herself in various acts. Neither in the FIR, there is any averment that the petitioner had refused to marry the victim. Further, it is seen Page No.# 8/9 that the victim was a major and that she knows the consequence of the acts that she indulged herself with the petitioner. In her statement before the Police, the victim had not stated that only after he promised to marry her, she developed relationship with him. She simply stated that a love relationship developed between them and that they exchanged video calls and also that they entered into physical relationship. Although there were allegations that the petitioner had forced her to record the illicit videos as well as to enter into physical relationship but she had not stated in the first part of her statement that petitioner had promised to marry her. She only stated about the marriage part, once in the last part of her statement to the effect that when she told him that she would go to the police, the petitioner told her that he would marry her. In her statement before the Magistrate recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she rather stated that relationship developed between them and they acted pursuant to the said relationship and that during November, 2024, the petitioner called her to his room and forcibly entered into sexual relationship with her. At no point of time during her statement before the Magistrate, the victim had stated that the petitioner had promised marriage to her. It is therefore seen in the facts of the case that materials are lacking with regard to the false promise of the marriage on the part of the petitioner. It is mandatory that the false promise of marriage should be there from the inception that is from the day the relationship starts but in the instant case, the said fact is not discernible. It is mandated that when the materials under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. submitted by the Investigating Officer does not disclose the offence, the Court should discharge the accused person. The trial being faced by the alleged accused person without there being any materials against him is an unknown punishment to the said accused person. In the instant case, the only witness Page No.# 9/9 arrayed in the charge sheet is the victim and her statement does not disclose an offence under Section 69 of BNS of 2023. 12. As such, this Court interferes with the order dated 16.06.2026 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.4, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Misc Case No.84/2026 in Sessions Case No. 94/2026. Accordingly, the order dated 16.06.2026 is set aside and quashed. Resultantly, the FIR being All Women Police Station Case No. 22/2025 as well as the charge sheet being charge sheet no. 23/2025 dated 30.04.2025 are also set aside and quashed. 13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant