Rajat Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18506
1 MCRC-27251-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
th
ON THE 24 OF JUNE, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27251 of 2025
RAJAT SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Harshit Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Samar Ghuraiya - Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Mr. Deependra Singh Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the respondent [R-
2].
ORDER
The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed seeking the quashing of FIR
No. 337 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri
against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. As per the prosecution's story, on 30.04.2025 at about 20:40 hours,
the prosecutrix/complainant lodged a written complaint stating that she had
met Rajat Sharma (the petitioner) through Facebook (FB). As their
friendship grew, they began talking over the phone and eventually met in
person for the first time on 20 August 2023. During this meeting, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 6/30/2026
3:09:20 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18506
2 MCRC-27251-2025
petitioner proposed marriage to her, expressing his desire to marry her, and

sought a physical relationship. Because he intended to marry her, they
engaged in consensual physical relations on multiple occasions. For the first
time, they had a physical relationship in August 2023 at Alok Rathore's
rented house, located near the Yuvraj Hotel, during his absence. Thereafter,
they had physical relationships at the petitioner's house and in a car. Before
entering into these relationships, the petitioner would routinely assure her
that he would marry her; consequently, she never opposed him. With mutual
consent, they also recorded a video of their physical relationship, which is in
her possession, and she also possesses photographs from a trip they took
together. The prosecutrix had discussed her relationship with the petitioner at
her home; her mother and sisters were agreeable to the marriage, and
everyone in the petitioner's house was also aware of the relationship.
Whenever she asked the petitioner to marry her, he would defer it, stating he
would do so after a few days. Subsequently, her brother, Mayank, was
diagnosed with cancer, and the petitioner stated that they would get married
once her brother recovered. However, her brother's health deteriorated, and
he passed away on 10 March 2025.
3. Following this, she told the petitioner that she now had no one left
and that they should get married, but he began making excuses. On 10 April,
he stated that his family members were not consenting; therefore, he could
not marry her at present. Despite numerous efforts made by her and her
family members, he refused to agree. She called him repeatedly, and her
family members also attempted to persuade him over the phone, but to no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 6/30/2026
3:09:20 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18506
3 MCRC-27251-2025
avail. The petitioner explicitly told her sister that he would not marry her at

any cost, regardless of whether he was hanged or sent to jail. Their last
meeting took place on 27 March 2025 on the Bhangarh Highway, where they
had a sexual relationship at around 10:30 PM. Consequently, finding herself
helpless, she lodged an FIR for physical exploitation under the false promise
of marriage, on the basis of which the aforesaid FIR was registered.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been an undue
delay in the filing of the FIR by the prosecutrix, and no satisfactory
explanation has been provided for the same. As per the prosecution’s own
version, the last alleged physical relationship occurred on 27.03.2025.
However, the complaint was made and the FIR was registered on
30.04.2025, after a gap of almost one month. This inordinate delay in
lodging the FIR remains completely unexplained by the prosecution. In
support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgments passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No. 35779
of 2025 (Varun Pratap Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.) and the order dated
06.05.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 9408 of 2025 (Virendra Verma Vs. State
of M.P. and Ors.), and accordingly prayed for the quashing of the FIR.
5. Per contra, Counsel for the State as well as Counsel for the
complainant vehemently opposed the application by submitting that the
orders relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are of no assistance in the
specific facts and circumstances of the present case. In those cases, the
petitioners were already married, and under that presumption, they could not
have given a false pretext of a promise of marriage to commit sexual
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 6/30/2026
3:09:20 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18506
4 MCRC-27251-2025
intercourse with the prosecutrix. Conversely, in the present case, the

possibility cannot be ruled out that the petitioner, being a bachelor, extended
a false promise of marriage to the prosecutrix to establish physical relations.
Under such circumstances, no interference is warranted in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
6 . To rebut the aforesaid submissions, counsel for the applicant
submits that there is no proof available with the prosecution so as to
substantiate about the promise made by the present applicant to the
prosecutrix for marriage. He submits that overall circumstances existing in
the case are required to be seen and it is clear that it is not a case where
physical relationship was developed once or twice but this relationship
continued for years together and after such a long time if such complaint is
lodged, the offence does not fall within the ambit of section 69 of BNS.
7. In reply, counsel for the respondents again opposed the submissions
and submits that if it is alleged by the prosecutrix that relationship was
developed by giving promise of marriage and it in itself is sufficient for
constituting an offence under section 69 of BNS and, therefore, contents of
FIR are sufficient to register the offence. The submission of the counsel for
the applicant has no substance and, therefore, the petition being
misconceived deserves to be dismissed.
8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the recorded appended
thereto.
9. For ready reference, Section 69 of BNS is reproduced below:-
"Section 69 Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc.
Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 6/30/2026
3:09:20 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18506
5 MCRC-27251-2025
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. Relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court and the
law laid down therein the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335, and the guidelines framed thereunder to quash the
FIR exercising the extraordinary powers provided under section 482 CrPC,
which is almost pari materia to section 528 of BNSS. However, in the FIR it
is alleged that the petitioner has developed physical relations with the
prosecutrix in the year 2023 by giving promise of marriage but developing
physical relations in the year 2023, the applicant and the prosecutrix did not
enter into marriage and about two years on the date of lodging the FIR, i.e.
30.04.2025, which clearly reveals that the relationship continued even after
2023 but the prosecutrix never made complaint to the police. Had it been a
case in which relationship developed once or twice and prosecutrix
restrained the petitioner for further developing physical relationship between
them asking him to first fulfill the promise of marriage, then it would have
been a case of false promise of marriage.
11. Considering the conduct of the parties it is clear that they were in
relationship but there was no such promise as has been alleged in the report.
When the prosecutrix agreed to enter into marriage in the month of August
2023 and when it was not done in that period, she should not have allowed
the applicant to continue with the relationship, but she did not do so, which
clearly indicates that there was no such condition between them and after
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 6/30/2026
3:09:20 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18506
6 MCRC-27251-2025
developing relationship and living like husband and wife yet he did not marry

her, the prosecutrix made a complaint to the police and offence u/s 69 of
BNS is registered.
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. State
of Maharashtra and others, 2024 SCCOnline 3471 although considered the
case of 376 IPC on a false promise of marriage but taking note of the fact
and observation made by the Supreme Court it is clear that if relationship is
continued for long then it cannot be presumed that the said relationship is
developed due to false promise of marriage. The observation made by the
Supreme Court is as under :-
"22. In our view, if a man is accused of having sexual relationship
by making a false promise of marriage and if he is to be held
criminally liable, any such physical relationship must be traceable
directly to the false promise made and not qualified by other
circumstances or consideration. A woman may have reasons to
have physical relationship other than the promise of marriage
made by the man, such as personal liking for the male partner
without insisting upon formal marital ties. Thus, in a situation
where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period
knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the
said physical relationship was purely because of the alleged
promise made by the appellant to marry her. Thus, unless it can be
shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the
promise of marriage, thereby having a direct nexus with the
physical relationship without being influenced by any other
consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent
under misconception of fact.

27. Thus, from the above it appears that it is more of an extra-
marital affair during the aforesaid period without any insistence by
the complainant for getting married to the appellant. The fact that
the complainant continued to have a physical relationship for a
long time without any insistence on marriage would indicate the
unlikelihood of any such promise made by the appellant for
marrying her and it rather indicates that the relationship was a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 6/30/2026
3:09:20 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18506
7 MCRC-27251-2025
consensual one.

In our opinion, the longer the duration of the physical relationship
between the partners without protest and insistence by the female
partner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual
relationship rather than a relationship based on false promise of
marriage by the male partner and thus, based on misconception of
fact".

13. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Bishwajyoti Chatterjee
Vs. State of West Bengal and another, 2025 LiveLaw(SC) 404 , the Supreme
Court again considered the aspect as to what type of relationship can be
considered to be of consensual relationship and what type of evidence is
required to prove that such relationship is consensual. The observation made
by the Supreme Court relying upon another Supreme Court judgment passed
in Uday vs State of Karnataka, 2003 4 SCC 46 observed in para 17 as under
:-
"In the ultimate analysis, the tests laid down by the courts provide
at best guidance to the judicial mind while considering a question
of consent, but the court must, in each case, consider the evidence
before it and the surrounding circumstances, before reaching a
conclusion, because each case has its own peculiar facts which
may have a bearing on the question whether the consent was
voluntary, or was given under a misconception of fact".
14. Further, it is observed by the Supreme Court in the said case as to
when relationship cannot be considered to be of a false promise of marriage.
The observation of the Supreme Court is as under :-
"20. We find that there is a growing tendency of resorting to
initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour.
Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage
may exist, cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry, in
the event of a fall out. It is such lis that amounts to an abuse of
process of law, and it is under such circumstances, that we deem
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 6/30/2026
3:09:20 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18506
8 MCRC-27251-2025
fit to terminate the proceedings at the stage of charge itself"

15. Thus it is clear from the aforesaid enunciation of law and
observations made by the Supreme Court so as to substantiate the
relationship between the parties cannot be considered to be developed on a
false pretext of marriage.
16. In the present case also, considering the existing factual
circumstances as has been narrated by the prosecutrix in the FIR and if the
same is considered to be true at its face value, it is clear that the said
relationship is not on a false promise of marriage and as such material
ingredients of sections 69 of BNS are completely missing and this
relationship cannot be considered to be a relationship developed on a false
promise of marriage and merely such allegations cannot be made basis for
initiating proceedings because there can be certain reasons showing
bitterness in the relationship between the parties and as such without there
being any cogent evidence available criminal prosecution that too under
section 69 of BNS cannot be initiated. I am not convinced with a
submissions made by counsel for the respondents, but, on the other hand,
looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the view taken
by the Supreme Court, as has been quoted hereinabove, in my opinion it is a
false malicious prosecution and no material ingredients of section 69 BNS is
available and as such FIR, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of Bhajanlal (supra).
17. Consequent upon the aforesaid discussion and in view of the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 6/30/2026
3:09:20 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18506
9 MCRC-27251-2025
essential ingredients to constitute an offense under Section 69 of the BNS

are visibly absent. Allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would
result in a miscarriage of justice and an abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 337 of 2025, registered at
Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri against the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(LJ*)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 6/30/2026
3:09:20 PM