• Consent and Promise to Marry: The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents, stating that consent for sexual intercourse based on a false promise to marry is not valid. A promise to marry must be made in good faith, and if it is established that the promise was false from the start, the consent is vitiated by misconception.
• Dowry Demands and Cheating: The Court found that the petitioner's dowry demands and subsequent refusal to marry amounted to constructive cheating.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Indian Penal Code (IPC): Sections 376(2)(n) (Rape), 420 (Cheating), read with Section 34 (Common Intention).
• Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Section 3(2)(5) (Atrocities against SC/ST).

1. Background (Paras 2.1 - 2.5):

   • The petitioner, Adithya Krishnan, and respondent no. 2 were co-workers and entered into a relationship, with promises of marriage.
   • On several occasions, despite resistance, the petitioner forced respondent no. 2 into sexual relationships under the assurance of marriage.
   • The engagement took place with dowry demands being made by the petitioner and his family. The marriage was later called off by the petitioner.

2. Petitioner's Submission (Paras 4 - 7):

   • The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual and that the FIR was an attempt to extort money after the marriage was called off due to personal quarrels.

3. Respondent's Submission (Paras 8 - 9):

   • The respondent argued that the sexual relationship was forced and based on the petitioner's false promise to marry, and dowry demands were made. The FIR was filed when it became clear that the petitioner had no intention of marrying her.

Key Precedents Cited:

• Shambhu Kharwar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh: Clarifies that consent under false pretense of marriage constitutes rape.
• Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh: Explains the difference between a mere breach of promise and a false promise to marry.

Conclusion: The Court dismissed the petition, finding that the allegations in the FIR revealed an offence under IPC and the SC/ST Act, and there was no ground to quash the FIR. The petitioner’s defense that the relationship was consensual was not accepted at this stage, as the case could not be decided without trial.

Subjects:
#QuashingOfFIR #FalsePromiseToMarry #Rape #DowryDemands #Consent #SCSTAct #Cheating