( 2026:JHHC:19396 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.3284 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3284 of 2025 ------ Abhishek Raut, aged about 31 years, son of Bijay Kumar Raut, residing at Plot No.-M/71, Rajiv Nagar, at Post Aiginia, P.S.- Bharatpur, District-Khurdha-751019 (Odisha). … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Xxxxxx … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Devesh Ajmani, Advocate : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY I.A. No.8328 of 2026 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of the instant Cr.M.P. Since, the hearing of instant Cr.M.P. is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No.3284 of 2025 By the Court:- Heard the parties. ( 2026:JHHC:19396 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.3284 of 2025 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No.248 of 2025 including the order dated 04.10.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 against the petitioner and taken cognizance of the said offence. 3. The brief fact of the case is that there was a negotiation of marriage between the petitioner and the informant/opposite party no.2, the petitioner and informant/opposite party no.2 came across each other through a matrimonial website. The initial discussion for marriage between the members of the two families took place on 10.12.2024 and the engagement ceremony of the petitioner and the informant/opposite party no.2 took place on 10.03.2025 and the date for the marriage was fixed and before that on 14.01.2025 both the families met together in a hotel at Bhubaneshwar to fix the date of engagement. The engagement ceremony known as Nirbandh Ceremony, first took place in a temple and on the same day, the engagement ceremony also took place in a posh hotel at Bhubaneshwar. After the engagement, the mother of the informant was detected suffering from cancer and was admitted to hospital, the doctors referred the mother to AIIMS, Bhubaneshwar and when the informant/opposite party no.2 intimated the same to the petitioner and ( 2026:JHHC:19396 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.3284 of 2025 his family members, they assured all support for admission of the mother of the informant at AIIMS, Bhubaneshwar. On 05.04.2025, the petitioner came to the house of the informant/opposite party no.2 and assured to marry her and established physical relationship with her and after that told the informant/opposite party no.2 that their marriage was going to be celebrated shortly. On 06.04.2025, both the petitioner and the informant together went to Bhubaneshwar and on 07.04.2025, the mother of the informant was admitted in a hospital. On 08.04.2025, the petitioner came to the hotel room of the informant on the guise of giving her tiffin and talked about his wish to have a Tata Safari car as dowry and the same was objected by the informant and when the informant told the petitioner that she does not believe in dowry, the petitioner went away telling that then the marriage cannot take place. The parents of the petitioner also refused for the marriage unless a Tata Safari car is given in dowry. On 19.06.2025, the father of the petitioner informed that he is breaking the proposed marriage. Under the pressure, the informant returned all the articles given to her at the time of engagement of her with the petitioner. 4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Adityapur P.S. Case No.248 of 2025 and took up investigation of the case, after investigation of the case, police found the allegation against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS, 2023 and basing upon the same, the learned Chief ( 2026:JHHC:19396 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.3284 of 2025 Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has taken cognizance of the said offence also. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230, paragraph-09 & 11 of which reads as under:- “9. In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence. This Court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC. 11. Taking into consideration that the Appellant is just 25 years of age, and has a lifetime ahead of him, it would be in the interest of justice that he does not suffer an impending trial and, therefore, the proceedings emanating from C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 are quashed at this stage itself.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that it is a case of consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant and thus the alleged occurrence cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Samadhan vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528, paragraph-29 & 30 of which reads as under:- “29. This Court has, on numerous occasions, taken note of the disquieting tendency wherein failed or broken relationships are given the colour of criminality. The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence ( 2026:JHHC:19396 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.3284 of 2025 of free consent. To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice. Such instances transcend the realm of mere personal discord. The misuse of the criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound concern and calls for condemnation. 30. In Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5 SCC 764, this Court speaking through one of us (Nagarathna, J.) observed that a mere break-up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in the initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marriage. The relevant portion is extracted as under: “20. In our view, taking the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet as they stand, the crucial ingredients of the offence under Section 376(2)(n)IPC are absent. A review of the FIR and the complainant's statement under Section 164CrPC discloses no indication that any promise of marriage was extended at the outset of their relationship in 2017. Therefore, even if the prosecution's case is accepted at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the complainant engaged in a sexual relationship with the appellant solely on account of any assurance of marriage from the appellant. The relationship between the parties was cordial and also consensual in nature. A mere break up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship. Further, both parties are now married to someone else and have moved on in their respective lives. Thus, in our view, the continuation of the prosecution in the present case would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that this is a case wherein a failed or broken, relationship is being given the colour of criminality, hence, it is submitted that as it is the admitted case of the informant that the engagement ceremony of her with the petitioner took place with much funfair, firstly, ( 2026:JHHC:19396 ) 6 Cr. M.P. No.3284 of 2025 in a temple and then in a posh hotel of Bhubaneshwar; it cannot be said that the petitioner was not having any intention of fulfilling the promise of marriage with the informant or else, there is no way, the petitioner could have spent substantial amount of money which is required for a party to be organized in a star hotel at Bhubaneshwar and that too involving the family members of both the families including their friends which were substantial in number. 7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner then relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Lal Mahli @ Bhagwan Lal Mahali vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2023:JHHC:43503, wherein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 1405, paragraph-09 of which reads as under:- “9. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), while dealing with a similar situation, the principles of law which must govern a situation like the present were enunciated in the following observations: "Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a "misconception of fact" that vitiates the woman's "consent". On the other hand, a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise. 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..." (Emphasis supplied) ( 2026:JHHC:19396 ) 7 Cr. M.P. No.3284 of 2025 Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that a breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise and to establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have held no intention of upholding his words at the time of giving it and in this case, there is no allegation to the effect that the promise to marry given to the informant was false at the inception and in the absence of the same, certainly, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence that is the accused was not having any intention of fulfilling the promise of marriage, the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS, 2023 is not made out. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS, 2023 is not made out. It is next submitted that as a matter of fact after negotiation of the marriage of the petitioner was fixed with the opposite party no.2/informant and engagement was done, the opposite party no.2/informant started accusing the petitioner for having brought her ill luck as immediately after the engagement, her mother was diagnosed with cancer and the informant on the pretext of her desire to continue with her parents, insisted for breaking the marriage which is apparent from the series of WhatsApp Chats between the petitioner and the informant; of which there is reference in the charge sheet also and the WhatsApp chats have been annexed as Annexure-03 series and there is no denial of the same by the opposite party no.2. ( 2026:JHHC:19396 ) 8 Cr. M.P. No.3284 of 2025 9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the Nirbandh Ceremony, 70 guests from the groom’s side attended and in the Ring ceremony held at the hotel in Bhubaneshwar on the same day for which the initial booking amount was paid by the father of the petitioner and around 100 guests attended the function comprising the family members, friends, relatives and near and dears including colony members from the side of the groom and the expenditure was Rs.4,16,170/- which split between the parties, out of which, father of the petitioner was paid Rs.2,08,085/-and there is no dispute regarding the said fact. 10. In this respect, learned senior counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this court to the booking receipt of the hotel and photographs of the ring ceremony which is annexed at Annexure-5, 5/1 & 5/2 of this Cr.M.P. It is then submitted that the petitioner and his parents were very much agreeable with the marriage. It is next submitted that as the bride side expressed its inability to make booking of more than 05 rooms for the members of ‘Barat’, so the father of the petitioner decided to bear the expense of the members of Barat and booked 17 rooms in Beldih Club Jamshedpur and further 05 rooms were booked at Hotel Wave International, the photocopy of booking confirmation has been annexed at Annexure-6 series of this Cr.M.P. and the same has remained undisputed. 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next submits that the father of the petitioner also made a booking for the reception in a star hotel in Bhubaneshwar by making advance payment of Rs.50,000/- and upon cancellation of the wedding by the family of the informant/opposite ( 2026:JHHC:19396 ) 9 Cr. M.P. No.3284 of 2025 party no.2, the said amount got forfeited. It is then submitted that the informant/opposite party no.2 prior to institution of the case sent a legal notice through her lawyer to the petitioner which was duly replied by the petitioner through his Advocate and the petitioner was also granted interim relief by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in ABLAPL No.8458 of 2025 and after coming to know about the relief given to the petitioner by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, the informant substantially changed the allegations made in the legal notice; in the FIR of this case, which goes to show that the entire FIR is concocted. It is further submitted that the engagement between the petitioner and the informant/opposite party no.2 are mutually broken. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s side gave more gifts than that compared to the family of the informant/opposite party no.2 which goes to show that the family of the petitioner has no greed for any dowry nor was there any demand of dowry and the gifts were exchanged between the parties on 19.06.2025 and the engagement was called off and broken in the place and manner as desired by the father of the informant/opposite party no.2, hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 12. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that WhatsApp Chats between the parties is not the admissible evidence for non compliance of Section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It ( 2026:JHHC:19396 ) 10 Cr. M.P. No.3284 of 2025 is further submitted that if the allegations made against the petitioner is made out in the FIR, in the case diary and in the charge sheet are considered to be true in their entirety, the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 is made out. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 13. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to refer to Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 which reads as under:- “69. Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc.—Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, 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. Explanation.—“deceitful means” shall include inducement for, or false promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity.”(Emphasis supplied) The plain reading of the Section makes it abundantly clear that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 are as under:- 1. The accused (a) by deceitful means; or (b) by making promise to marry women without any intention of fulfilling the same; 2. has sexual intercourse with the women. 3. Such sexual intercourse does not amount the offence of rape. 14. This is not a case where the petitioner adopted any deceitful means to have sexual intercourse with the informant, but this is a case where the ( 2026:JHHC:19396 ) 11 Cr. M.P. No.3284 of 2025 petitioner allegedly made a promise to marry to the informant without any intention to fulfilling the same. 15. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains that before the alleged occurrence which took place on 05.04.2025, there was a talk between the family members of both the petitioner and the informant on 10.12.2024 and there was another meeting on 14.01.2025 between both the families in a hotel at Bhubaneshwar and in that meeting, the date of engagement was fixed to 10.03.2025. On 10.03.2025, two ceremonies took place, one was Nirbandh Ceremony which took place in the Jagannath Temple and on the same day another ceremony was also held in a hotel at Bhubaneshwar. These are admitted facts of the informant herself in the First Information Report. 16. It is needless to mention that the averments in this respect made by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P. which has remained undisputed are that several friends, relatives and others about 70-100 guests attended the ceremonies. 17. Now under such admitted facts of the case, when admittedly 04 different venues covering over 03 different days, there was meeting, assembly and celebration of both the members of the families and friends involving several lakhs of rupees and even the venue of the marriage was booked by paying advance payment by the father of the petitioner and which amount was forfeited because of cancellation of marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 and all this happened before the alleged date of occurrence, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that ( 2026:JHHC:19396 ) 12 Cr. M.P. No.3284 of 2025 all these undisputed facts took place without the petitioner having the intention to marry the informant. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not having any intention to marry the informant since the inception, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true. Of course, the allegations are denied by the petitioner and the petitioner’s case is that members of the opposite party who broke the marriage. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court the allegations at the most, amount to breach of promise, but it being a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) that breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise, hence, in the considered opinion of this court even if the entire allegations against the petitioner made in the FIR, in the case diary and charge sheet submitted against the petitioner, the same is not sufficient to make out a case that the petitioner made a promise to marry the informant without any intention to fulfil the same or the petitioner adopting any deceitful means; which of course is not the case of the informant and in the absence of the essential ingredients, 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 69 of BNS, 2023 is not made out against the petitioner. Hence, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Adityapur P.S. ( 2026:JHHC:19396 ) 13 Cr. M.P. No.3284 of 2025 Case No.248 of 2025 including the order dated 04.10.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 against the petitioner and taken cognizance of the said offence, be quashed and set aside. 18. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No.248 of 2025 including the order dated 04.10.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 against the petitioner and taken cognizance of the said offence, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 19. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 01st of July, 2026 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 06/07/2026