IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>AT GWALIOR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

<>

ON THE 10

<>

th

<>

OF FEBRUARY, 2026

<>

WRIT PETITION No. 15395 of 2025

<>

RAJU

<>

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Mr. Yash Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Dinesh Savita - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

None for the respondent No. 4 even though served.

ORDER

<>

The present repeat petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, seeks the quashing of FIR No. 180 of 2024, dated December 10, 2024. The

said FIR was registered at Police Station Matabasaiya, District Morena, for

alleged offenses under Sections 64(2)(m) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

(BNS).

2

<>

. The prosecution's case, in a nutshell, is as follows:

On December 10, 2024, the prosecutrix filed a written complaint stating

that she is a resident of Village Rasilpur. According to her statement, the incident

began approximately one and a half years ago when a man named Raju, from the

same village, began visiting her home. Over time, they developed an acquaintance

and began communicating regularly.

One day, Raju visited her house and proposed that she divorce her husband,

promising that he would marry her. On that occasion, he allegedly established a

physical relationship with her against her will. Subsequently, Raju continued to

engage in a physical relationship with her on multiple occasions under the false

1 WP-15395-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5552

pretext of marriage. The last such instance occurred on August 18, 2024, after

which they remained in contact.

On November 28, 2024, Raju asked the prosecutrix to leave with him.

Without informing anyone at her home, she accompanied him to Gwalior, where

they stayed the night. On November 29, 2024, Raju’s father, Jabar Singh,

contacted them and urged them to return home, assuring them that he would

arrange their marriage. However, upon their return, Raju refused to marry her. On

the basis of which, aforesaid crime was registered.

3

<>

. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix is a neighbor of

the petitioner and has falsely implicated him in the aforementioned crime. It is

contended that the petitioner has no involvement in the alleged offense; therefore,

the instant FIR deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice.

4

<>

. It is further submitted that, according to the prosecution's own case, the

petitioner allegedly engaged in sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix under the

false pretext of marriage, promising to marry her once her divorce was finalized.

The allegations suggest that, acting on this assurance, the prosecutrix permitted

further sexual intercourse despite her initial objections. It is further alleged that

shortly thereafter, the petitioner reduced his interactions with respondent No. 2

and ultimately refused to marry her. In support of his contention, counsel for the

petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Amol Bhagwal Nehul Vs. The State of Maharashtra

<>

, passed in SLP (Crl.) No.

<>

10044 of 2024

<>

. Reliance is also placed on the judgments passed by this Court in

Rajendra Aporiya Vs. State of M.P. and Others (W.P. No. 33661 of 2024)

<>

and

Girraj Sharma Vs. State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No. 26644 of 2023)

<>

. It is submitted that

in similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have

quashed the FIR.

2 WP-15395-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5552

5

<>

. Counsel for the respondent/State while opposing the prayer for quashing

of the FIR, submit that the allegations levelled in the FIR, when taken at their face

value, clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections

64(2)(m) and 87 of the IPC. The petitioner, under the guise of a promise to marry,

allegedly established repeated physical relations with the prosecutrix and

thereafter refused to solemnize the marriage. The contents of the FIR make out a

prima facie case, and hence, the FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold. They

submit that the question of whether the consent of the prosecutrix was free and

voluntary or was obtained on the false pretext of marriage is a matter of trial and

requires appreciation of evidence. Under these circumstances, they prayed for

dismissal of the present petition.

6

<>

. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended

thereto.

7

<>

. From a perusal of the record, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner

allegedly engaged in intercourse with the prosecutrix on several occasions under

the false pretext of marriage. The last incident occurred on August 18, 2024. Since

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, came into force on July 1, 2024, it is

applicable to the present facts and circumstances. Under the current legal

framework, Section 69 of the BNS governs the present scenario.

8

<>

. For ready reference Section 69 of BNS is reproduced below:-

"69

<>

. Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc.

<>

- 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.

Explanation:

<>

“deceitful means” shall include the false promise of

employment or promotion, inducement or marring after suppressing

identity."

3 WP-15395-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5552

9.

<>

From a plain reading of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,

it is evident that where a person, by deceitful means or by making a promise to

marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, establishes sexual

intercourse with her—such act not amounting to rape—the same constitutes a

distinct offence punishable under the said provision.

10.

<>

In the present case, the allegations in the FIR, when taken at their face

value, clearly indicate that the petitioner allegedly established physical relations

with the prosecutrix on multiple occasions on the assurance of marriage and

thereafter refused to solemnize the same. It is specifically alleged that the

petitioner persuaded the prosecutrix to divorce her husband and promised to marry

her, and on that pretext continued to maintain physical relations. The FIR further

discloses that the parties had even left for Gwalior together with the understanding

that their marriage would be arranged, but subsequently the petitioner declined to

marry her.

11.

<>

At this stage, this Court is not required to meticulously examine the

truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, nor to conduct a mini trial. The scope

of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with the settled

principles governing quashment of FIR, is limited to examining whether the

allegations, as stated in the FIR, prima facie disclose the commission of any

cognizable offence.

12.

<>

The question as to whether the promise to marry was false from its

inception, whether the consent of the prosecutrix was obtained by deceitful means,

and whether the ingredients of Section 69 of the BNS are ultimately made out, are

matters which require appreciation of evidence and can only be adjudicated during

trial.

13.

<>

The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner turn

4 WP-15395-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5552

(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )

<>

JUDGE

<>

on their own facts. Whether the ratio laid down therein is applicable to the facts of

the present case can only be determined after the evidence is brought on record.

At this preliminary stage, this Court does not find that the FIR is so absurd or

inherently improbable that no offence is made out.

14.

<>

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the allegations contained in the FIR disclose a prima facie cognizable

offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Therefore, no

case is made out for quashing of FIR No. 180 of 2024 at this stage.

15.

<>

Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed

<>

. It

is, however, made clear that any observations made herein are only for the

purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice either party during

the course of trial.

16.

<>

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(LJ*)

5 WP-15395-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5552