Quashing is unwarranted at the nascent stage where allegations disclose rape by false promise and dowry demand.

The informant alleged that the petitioner obtained her consent for sexual relations by making a false promise of marriage and subsequently demanded ₹10 lakhs as dowry as a condition for marrying her.

It was further alleged that the informant’s mother transferred ₹1 lakh to the petitioner’s bank account and separately paid ₹75,000, besides ₹21,000 for a gold chain; the petitioner allegedly refused to marry the informant when the demand for ₹10 lakhs was not fulfilled.

Sindri P.S. Case No. 92 of 2024 was registered for offences under Sections 376, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet, and the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, took cognizance of the offences by order dated 13 May 2025.

The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR, the criminal proceeding, the charge-sheet and the cognizance order.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, but declined to quash a prosecution where the allegations, if accepted in their entirety, disclosed cognizable offences and the matter required consideration at trial.

The Court applied the principle that a specific allegation of demanding money as a condition for marriage prima facie attracts Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It also considered the principles governing consent obtained through a false promise of marriage under Section 376 IPC, relying on Deepak Toppo v. State of Jharkhand , Matiyas Sanga v. State of Jharkhand and Sonu @ Subash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2021) 18 SCC 517, as well as Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand , (2020) 10 SCC 108, concerning the requirement that the misconception of fact be proximate to the sexual act.

Relying on State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde , (2014) 3 SCC 659, the Court held that the appropriate determination of the offences and the addition or deletion of charges should ordinarily be made at the stage of framing of charge, rather than by prematurely terminating the proceeding after cognizance.

The Court held that the allegation of a ₹10-lakh demand as a condition for marriage was direct and specific and, even if taken as true, prima facie made out an offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The allegation that the petitioner secured the informant’s consent by a false promise of marriage, coupled with the police finding the allegations true and submitting a charge-sheet, was sufficient to prevent quashing at the nascent stage.

Although the petitioner relied on cases involving consensual relationships and the absence of an initial promise to marry, the Court found that the present allegations specifically asserted a false promise and a dowry-linked refusal to marry.

Further, because the petitioner had not appeared before the trial court and the matter had not reached the stage of framing of charge, the Court considered it inappropriate to conclusively determine the precise charges in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

It held that the allegations, taken at face value, prima facie disclosed the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and warranted continuation of the prosecution; the challenge to the Section 376 IPC allegation could be considered at the appropriate stage of framing of charge.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of the FIR, criminal proceeding, charge-sheet and cognizance order dated 13 May 2025 was consequently dismissed as meritless.