FIR Is Not an Encyclopedia; Existence of Deceitful Promise and Non-Consensual Miscarriage Bars Quashing Under Section 528 BNSS.

The petitioner filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash an entire criminal proceeding arising from Mahila P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025.

The allegations stated that the petitioner engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim on multiple occasions starting July 30, 2024, by making a false promise of marriage without the intention of fulfilling it.

It was further alleged that on November 16, 2024, the petitioner voluntarily caused the victim's miscarriage without her consent.

Following an investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega, took cognizance of the offenses on October 14, 2025.

Subsequently, the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega, framed charges against the petitioner on February 27, 2026.

The petitioner moved to amend the petition to specifically challenge the framing of charges but failed to produce the actual order of the Sessions Court.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and investigation materials are sufficient to constitute an offense under Section 69 of the BNS (sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage).

2. Whether the materials on record prima facie establish an offense under Section 89 of the BNS (causing miscarriage without consent).

3. Whether the high court should exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings when the petitioner has suppressed the trial court's charging order.

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which penalizes sexual intercourse through deceitful means or a promise to marry without intention to fulfill it.

Section 89 of the BNS, 2023, regarding the voluntary causing of miscarriage without the woman’s consent.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC).

The principle that an FIR is "not the encyclopedia of the prosecution case" and that charges are framed based on the entire gamut of materials collected during investigation, including statements under Section 183 of BNSS.

The doctrine derived from Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2021 SC 1405), noting that for a "false promise," there must be no intention to uphold the word at the time of giving it.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that a mere breach of promise does not amount to a criminal offense, observing that the investigation materials—including the victim's statement under Section 183 BNSS, medical reports, and Call Detail Records (CDR)—provided a prima facie basis for the charges.

The court noted that the Sessions Judge found the petitioner used "deceitful means" and made a promise "without the intention of fulfilling the same," which satisfies the ingredients of Section 69 BNS.

Regarding Section 89 BNS, the court found the allegation of miscarriage without consent sufficient at this stage.

The court reasoned that in the absence of the trial court's order, which the petitioner deliberately withheld, it could not sit in judgment over the Sessions Judge's detailed findings.

The Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, refusing to quash the proceedings or the cognizance/charging orders, noting the petitioner's conduct in suppressing the trial court's order weighed against the grant of discretionary relief.