JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, Shri Tripurari Pal, learned counsel for applicants, Shri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Shri S.K. Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

(2.) The present application under Sec. 528 B.N.S.S. has been moved by three applicants accused. The main allegation of sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage is leveled against applicant no. 1. The applicant no. 2 is brother of applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 3 is wife of applicant no. 2 and sister-in-law of applicant no. 1. The applicant nos. 2 and 3 have been charge sheeted for the offence of criminal intimidation. The relief sought is to quash the charge sheet dtd. 30/3/2025, cognizance taking order dtd. 22/5/2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Aligarh and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 419 of 2025 (State Vs. Jitendra Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 55/2025, under Ss. 69 and 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Gandhi Park, District- Aligarh.

(3.) Learned counsel for applicants submits that the relationship between applicant no. 1 and victim was of love and affection since their graduation time, which could not mature into marriage, though the accused applicant no. 1 and victim being adult entered in sexual intercourse with consent. The accused applicant has not hide his identity to maintain relations with the victim. The accused applicant and victim were studying together and there was love affairs between the two. Further submits that the victim has no case of sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage, but the proposal and assurance was bona fide and the relations between two was not due to any deceitful act of accused applicant. The statement of victim recorded under Sec. 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. is inconsistent. The victim is a lawyer, who knew repercussion of her act and long duration of sexual intercourse between the two adults without playing of deceit is inferred as consensual relation. Further submits that the victim has demanded Rs.10.00 lakhs from the applicant prior to lodging of the F.I.R. and in the event of not handing over the amount a false and frivolous F.I.R. at a belated stage is lodged. Learned counsel has relied on the case of Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2024) 11 SCC 398; Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 ; Prashant Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (2025) 5 SCC 764.