Accused Knew That He Was Married & His False Promise Of Marriage Would Be Broken: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash Chargesheet U/S 69 BNS
The application before the Allahabad High Court was filed under Section 528 of the BNSS by the four applicants (accused and his family members) with a prayer to quash the charge sheet, the summoning order and the proceedings against them.
The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash the proceedings against a man for maintaining physical relations on an alleged false promise of marriage after noting that while entering into sexual relations with the victim, he knew that he was married and his false promise of marriage to the victim would be broken.
The application before the High Court was filed under Section 528 of the BNSS by the four accused-applicants (accused and his family members) with a prayer to quash the charge sheet, the summoning order and the proceeding of the case registered under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the BNS. The main allegations of sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage were levelled against the first accused applicant.
The Single Bench of Justice Avnish Saxena held, “The prior knowledge of victim that applicant no. 1 was married at the time when she entered into sexual intercourse with him is the matter of trial, because the record is clear and explicit on the point that the victim was not knowing about the marital status of applicant no. 1. 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.”
Advocate Mohd. Imran represented the Applicant, while Advocate Lalit Kumar Pandey represented the Opposite Party.
Factual Background
The FIR before the High Court was lodged by the victim-second opposite party against the four accused applicants with the allegation that the victim came in contact with the accused applicant through Facebook and since May 2018 was involved in sexual relations with him on false promise of marriage. It was alleged that the victim became pregnant five times and an abortion occurred. It was alleged that whenever she asked for marriage, the first applicant managed to escape the reply. It was further alleged that the accused applicant had refused to marry her and threatened her to kill, voluntarily hurt and hurl abuses.
The first applicant’s wife, sister and brother-in-law, then allegedly started threatening to kill her, offered her money and pressured her family to compromise on a heavy amount. It was further revealed from the FIR that the applicant had her indecent photographs and videos, and he used to blackmail her. It was also disclosed that the accused applicant had committed the same act with other girls. The accused applicants sought quashing of the entire proceedings on the ground that the relation between the two was consensual in nature.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the accused applicant is a married man and came in contact with the victim through a social media app. He called the victim to a hotel where the accused applicant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim. It was the case of the victim that she did not know that the accused applicant was married, and she was also unaware of the fact that the accused applicant was the husband of a girl from her village.
As per the Bench, the point of consent of sexual intercourse, knowing the marriage of the first applicant was the matter of trial, and the allegation of criminal intimidation levelled at other co-accused applicants was also explicit on record and a subject matter of trial.
The Bench also noted how the Apex Court has given an expression of 'rarest of rare case', while describing the scope of Section 482 CrPC and how this view is consistently maintained by the Apex Court till the present day, which is settled by several judgments, including Naresh Potteries Vs. Aarti Industries (2025) and Punit Beriwala Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi (2025).
Thus, finding the application under Section 528 BNSS to be devoid of merit, the Bench dismissed the same.
Cause Title: Vipin Kumar And 3 Others v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:39442)
Appearance
Applicant: Advocates Mohd. Imran, Syed Safdar Ali Kazmi
Opposite Party: Advocate Lalit Kumar Pandey, Government Advocate Sheshadri Trivedi