Madras HC Refuses To Quash FIR Alleging Man Had Sex After Promising Marriage, Then Refused To Marry

In brief

The question

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence warranting investigation, or whether the FIR should be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The court held

The Court held that the FIR in Crime No. 40 of 2026 should not be quashed at that stage.

It also directed

The Court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

01Facts

The petitioner sought to quash Crime No. 40 of 2026, registered by the first respondent police under Sections 69 and 89 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1

The complaint alleged that the petitioner promised to marry the second respondent, with whom he was in a relationship; she had physical relations with him believing that promise, but he later refused to marry her.

p. 1

The petitioner denied the allegations and sought quashing.

p. 1

The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation was almost complete, with only the filing of the final report remaining.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence warranting investigation, or whether the FIR should be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1 · pp. 5–6

ii.2. Whether the Court should interfere with the ongoing investigation where the FIR contained specific allegations against the petitioner.

p. 3

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to exercise inherent jurisdiction, including to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

p. 1

The Court relied on Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (14) SCC 350, for the principle that proceedings may be quashed where the allegations disclose no offence or are frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive, but the Court should not assess whether the material will ultimately secure a conviction at the initial stage.

pp. 3–4

It also relied on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, for the principles that quashing is exceptional, an FIR is not an encyclopaedia, and courts should ordinarily allow an investigation to proceed where the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.

pp. 4–5

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 69 Section 89

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

04Reasoning

The Court found that the FIR contained specific allegations against the petitioner and disclosed, prima facie, the commission of a cognizable offence.

pp. 2–5

Applying the principles in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar and Neeharika Infrastructure, it declined to evaluate the merits of the allegations or determine whether they would ultimately result in conviction.

pp. 2–5

Given that the investigation was still underway, the Court considered it inappropriate to interfere with the investigating agency’s work.

pp. 2–5