Mere opposition to a proposed marriage does not establish abetment or criminal liability.

Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint on 28 November 2023, alleging offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 109 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case proceeded as S.C. No. 186/2024 before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru.

Petitioner No. 1 contended that the relationship and sexual intimacy were consensual, that he had genuinely intended to marry the complainant, and that the complaint was delayed. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, his mother and sister, were alleged to have opposed the marriage; the complainant maintained that Petitioner No. 1’s promise to marry induced her consent to the relationship.

The petition sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated also to be filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

1. Whether the allegations and investigation material against Petitioner No. 1 warranted quashing the proceedings at the threshold, particularly where the complainant alleged that her consent to sexual relations was given on a promise of marriage.

2. Whether the allegations that Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 opposed the proposed marriage disclosed the ingredients of the alleged offences or a sufficient basis for abetment or conspiracy.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (the petition also referred to Section 528 BNSS) to assess whether the charge-sheet material, taken at face value, disclosed the alleged offences and whether continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

A genuine promise to marry that is later unfulfilled does not, by itself, establish an offence; a promise alleged to have been false from its inception may have a different legal consequence, but the distinction may require evidentiary determination.

At the quashing stage, the Court should not conduct a mini-trial or conclusively resolve competing factual accounts.

Criminal liability for abetment or conspiracy requires material indicating participation or intentional assistance; familial relationship or opposition to a marriage alone is insufficient.

As to Petitioner No. 1, the complainant alleged a continuing representation that the parties would marry, including an assurance made to her parents, and claimed that the relationship and physical intimacy proceeded on that understanding.

Whether the promise was genuine or false from the outset, and the significance of the parties’ conduct, the complainant’s consent and the delay in reporting, required assessment of evidence; the Court therefore declined to accept the defence version or undertake a mini-trial at the quashing stage.

By contrast, the allegations against Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 essentially concerned opposition to the marriage. There was no specific allegation that they made the promise, induced the complainant, participated in the sexual relationship, or intentionally assisted its commission; those allegations did not supply the necessary factual basis for the offences alleged.

The petition was allowed as to Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, and the proceedings against them in S.C. No. 186/2024 were quashed.