The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR and charge sheet, holding that: The allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, did not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC (Para 56). The Complainant’s consent was not vitiated by a false promise of marriage, as there was no evidence that the Petitioner never intended to marry her (Para 63-64). The FIR was filed with an ulterior motive, making the criminal proceedings an abuse of the judicial process (Para 60). The Complainant’s marital status at the time of the alleged incident further weakened the case, as she could not have reasonably believed in the promise of marriage (Para 71-72).

False Promise of Marriage: A breach of promise to marry does not amount to a false promise unless it is proven that the promise was made with no intention of being fulfilled at the time it was given (Para 63).

Consent: Consent given by a mature individual, especially a married woman, must be evaluated with greater circumspection, especially when the promise of marriage is alleged to have vitiated consent (Para 71-72).

Abuse of Process: Criminal proceedings initiated with an ulterior motive, such as seeking financial compensation, can be quashed to prevent abuse of the judicial process (Para 60).

Relevant Paragraphs:

• Para 56: Allegations in the FIR did not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC.

• Para 63-64: Distinction between a false promise and a breach of promise.

• Para 71-72: Complainant’s marital status and its relevance to the case.

• Para 60: FIR filed with an ulterior motive, making it an abuse of process.

Major Acts:

1. Constitution of India (COI), Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction of High Courts.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, Section 482 – Inherent powers of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings.

3. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, Section 376 – Punishment for rape.

Subjects:
False promise of marriage – Consent – Sexual relationship – Ulterior motive – Quashing of FIR – Charge sheet – Abuse of process – Mature individuals – Married woman – Financial compensation.

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation: The Petitioner, a US citizen, challenged the FIR and charge sheet filed against him under Section 376 IPC, alleging rape based on a false promise of marriage. The incident was alleged to have occurred on 24/25 November 2022 in Thane, Maharashtra.

2. Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy? The Petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and charge sheet, arguing that the allegations were baseless, inherently improbable, and filed with an ulterior motive.

3. Reason for Filing the Case: The Complainant, a Canadian resident, alleged that the Petitioner had forcible sexual relations with her on the promise of marriage. However, the Petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual and that the complaint was filed after the failure of financial negotiations.

4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now? The Jersey City Police Department (USA) had earlier investigated the Complainant’s allegations but closed the case due to insufficient evidence. The Bombay High Court reserved judgment after hearing arguments from both sides.

Issues:

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, prima facie constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC?

2. Whether the FIR and charge sheet were filed with an ulterior motive, making the criminal proceedings an abuse of the judicial process?

3. Whether the Complainant’s consent was vitiated by a false promise of marriage, given her marital status at the time of the alleged incident?

Submissions/Arguments:

1. Petitioner’s Arguments (Para 10-17):
   a. The Complainant’s initial complaint did not mention the alleged incident of 24/25 November 2022.
   b. The relationship was consensual, and the Complainant was married at the time of the alleged incident.
   c. The FIR was filed belatedly, with an ulterior motive to seek financial compensation.
   d. The Petitioner had proposed marriage, but the Complainant declined due to age differences.
   e. The allegations were inherently improbable and did not establish a prima facie case under Section 376 IPC.

2. Respondent’s Arguments (Para 18-26):
   a. The Complainant alleged that the Petitioner had forcible sexual relations with her on the promise of marriage.
   b. The Complainant’s consent was vitiated by the false promise of marriage.
   c. The Petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigation, leading to the issuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC).
   d. The FIR and charge sheet should not be quashed as they disclosed sufficient grounds for prosecution.