The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an application seeking to quash a charge sheet and criminal proceedings against a man accused of maintaining a sexual relationship with a woman on a false promise of marriage, observing that if an accused is already married, the promise is “deceitful from the very beginning.”
Justice Avnish Saxena, presiding over Court No. 53, refused to exercise the court’s inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to quash the proceedings of Case No. 554 of 2025 (State Vs. Vipin Kumar and others) pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR lodged on May 22, 2025, by the victim (Opposite Party No. 2) against the primary accused (Vipin Kumar) and three others (his wife, sister, and brother-in-law). The victim alleged that she came into contact with Kumar via Facebook in May 2018. She claimed that he engaged in continuous sexual intercourse with her on a false promise of marriage.
According to the FIR, the victim became pregnant five times. On the first four occasions, she was allegedly forced to undergo abortions. At the time of recording her statement under Section 180 BNSS, she was six months pregnant with the fifth child, eventually giving birth to a baby girl on October 1, 2025. The victim further alleged that Kumar surreptitiously recorded indecent photographs and videos of her to blackmail her. The other accused were charged with voluntary causing hurt, intentional insult, and aggravated criminal intimidation for allegedly pressuring the victim’s family for a compromise.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the relationship was consensual and that no “deceitful means” were employed. They contended that the victim, being an educated graduate, was aware that Kumar was married, as she had reportedly attended his wedding in 2016. They further suggested the FIR was a retaliatory measure after financial support was refused. To support their claims, the applicants cited the Supreme Court judgments in Amol Bhagwan Nehul Vs. State of Maharashtra, Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra, and Uday Vs. State of Karnataka.
Conversely, the learned A.G.A. for the State and the counsel for the victim submitted that Kumar, being already married, knew his promise was deceitful from the start. They emphasized that Kumar allegedly shot videos surreptitiously to blackmail the victim. They relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Yedla Srinivasa Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, which discusses the presumption of absence of consent under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court examined the new Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which specifically penalizes sexual intercourse by deceitful means or false promise of marriage. Justice Saxena noted:
“The provision contained in Section 69 of B.N.S. is a new induction in penal law, wherein sexual intercourse with a woman, by deceitful means including false promise of marriage is not ‘Rape’, but is made punishable.”
The Court distinguished the precedents cited by the applicants, noting that in those cases, either the marital status was clearly known to the victim or the facts involved unique circumstances like a lack of formal divorce. In the present case, the Court found that the victim’s prior knowledge of Kumar’s marital status was a “matter of trial.”
Crucially, the Court observed:
“Moreover, the accused applicant no. 1 while entering into sexual intercourse with the victim knew that he is a married man and his false promise of marriage to the victim will be broken, therefore, the allegation of deceit is from the very beginning of entering into sexual intercourse.”
Regarding the High Court’s powers under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC), the Court reiterated that such power should be used to prevent the abuse of the process of law and for procuring the ends of justice, but only in the “rarest of rare cases.”
Decision
The Court concluded that there was ample material on record to proceed with the trial and that the allegations were explicit. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Vipin Kumar And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
- Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 45399 of 2025
- Judge: Justice Avnish Saxena
- Counsel for Applicant(s): Mohd. Imran, Syed Safdar Ali Kazmi
- Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Lalit Kumar Pandey, Sheshadri Trivedi, Ms. Seema Shukla (G.A.)
