High Court Refuses to Quash Cognizance Against Absconding Accused in Alleged False Promise of Marriage Case

The Petitioner and the informant were in a consensual romantic relationship since 2022

The informant alleged that the Petitioner established physical relations under the promise of marriage, but subsequently reneged, blocked her, and physically/mentally harassed her

Based on the FIR, an investigation was conducted, and a preliminary charge-sheet was submitted on 12.07.2025, identifying the Petitioner as an absconder

On 19.07.2025, the J.M.F.C., Jatani, took cognizance of offences under Sections 64(2)(m) (rape by promise to marry), 318(2) (cheating), and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were later issued on 20.03.2026

The Petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash the cognizance order, arguing the relationship was consensual and the medical report was negative

1. Whether the impugned order of cognizance and subsequent issuance of process warrants interference under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court

2. Whether the Petitioner’s status as an absconder disentitles him from seeking equitable relief under Section 482 of the CrPC/Section 528 of the BNSS

The court applied the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS)

interference is only permissible in exceptional circumstances to prevent abuse of the process of the court

Section 193(8) of the BNSS permits further investigation even after a preliminary report is filed

The court relied on the principle that a meticulous inquiry into the reliability or sufficiency of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing

The Court observed that while the Petitioner challenged the merits of the allegations (citing consent and lack of medical corroboration), he had been classified as an absconder by the Trial Court

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner's conduct—willfully evading the law and failing to cooperate with the judicial process—exhibited a lack of bona fides, which disentitled him from receiving equitable relief

Regarding the "preliminary" nature of the charge-sheet, the Court found that the Investigating Officer acted within legal bounds to secure the attendance of an absconding accused

The Court held that the factual disputes regarding the nature of the relationship and the alleged deception must be adjudicated at trial through the appreciation of evidence, and cannot be pre-empted through a quashing petition

It held that no ground for interference was established as the matter required a full trial to ascertain the truth

The court further ordered that any earlier interim orders stand vacated