Case Note & Summary
The case involved a criminal petition filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings in Special Case No. 88 of 2025, which were initiated based on allegations of sexual offences under the BNS and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner, a medical practitioner, was accused by the complainant, also a doctor, of having a physical relationship under the pretext of marriage, which she claimed was not fulfilled due to caste discrimination. The relationship began in 2017 and continued until the complaint was filed in March 2025. The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual and not based on deceitful promises. The complainant argued that the relationship was initiated on the promise of marriage, which was later denied by the petitioner. The court analyzed the nature of the relationship, emphasizing that a long-term consensual relationship does not automatically imply deceit or a breach of promise. The court referred to precedents that distinguish between consensual relationships and those based on deceitful promises, ultimately concluding that the allegations did not substantiate an offence under the relevant sections. The court quashed the proceedings, stating that allowing the case to proceed would constitute an abuse of the legal process.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Abuse of Process - Criminal Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. - The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner as the allegations did not establish deceitful means or a promise of marriage, indicating that the relationship was consensual. The court held that the mere existence of a relationship over several years does not imply deceit or a breach of promise under Section 69 of the BNS (Paras 10-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the allegations against the petitioner constituted an offence under Section 69 of the BNS and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Final Decision
The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, stating that the allegations did not establish deceitful means or a promise of marriage, indicating that the relationship was consensual.
Law Points
- Quashing of proceedings
- promise of marriage
- deceitful means
- consensual relationship
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- 1989
- abuse of process of law
