Factual Matrix 

In the Matter of Amar Singh Rajput v. State of M.P, The prosecutrix filed the FIR for the crime punishable under Sections 376(2)(N), 506, and 34 of the IPC, and the subsequent criminal proceedings, alleging that the petitioner had a physical relationship with her under the false pretence of marriage. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking to have the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings dismissed.

Contention From Parties 

The prosecutrix claims that she was romantically involved with the petitioner during the years 2020 and 2021 and that she frequently visited the petitioner in Seondha. The prosecutrix said that whenever she brought up solemnising marriage, the petitioner used to disregard her. When she trusted the petitioner’s vow to marry her, the prosecutrix argued against the petitioner’s claim that she did not give her assent under false pretences.

The petitioner claimed that the FIR was filed with the sole purpose of gaining an unfair advantage for the petitioner. The prosecutrix is a mature woman with three children, and the petitioner and she were in a committed relationship for a long time, the petitioner further said, thus her permission was not gained by deceit.

Analysis of Court Order 

Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal was part of a single Madhya Pradesh High Court bench that made the observation that a wise lady needs more than a year to understand the difference between a simple breach of commitment and making a fraudulent vow to marry hence FIR had been Quashed.

The Court has made a distinction between a Breach of promise violation and making a fraudulent commitment to marry. A woman’s permission gained under false pretences of fact would be invalidated by a false promise made with the purpose of deception. However, a promise that is simply broken cannot be regarded as a false promise. The prosecutrix’s over a-year-long sexual contact with the petitioner and her willingness to take part in the marriage, according to the court, cannot be interpreted as a misrepresentation of the facts. According to the court, a wise lady would have adequate time to ascertain if the commitment was sincere or whether there had been a breach of it. The prosecutrix’s continuous contact with the petitioner up until the FIR was filed while refusing to solemnise their marriage, which is why the case is seen as a violation of the vow to marry.

The court decided that, in light of the facts and circumstances of the current case, prosecuting the petitioner for the charges would only amount to an abuse of the legal system and so quashed the impugned FIR and its accompanying criminal proceedings in the form of a charge-sheet.

CASE NAME – Amar Singh Rajput v. State of M.P., Misc. Criminal Case No. 46602 of 2022.