Ritesh Gupta vs. State Of U. P

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5439 OF 2024 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 6715 OF 2024]

RITESH GUPTA Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2024.12.21 10:49:23 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified

Office Report dated 07.12.2024 indicates that in spite of service on Respondent No. 2, the prosecutrix, no one has entered appearance on her behalf.

The appellant is named in the FIR by the prosecutrix wherein it is alleged that she entered into a physical relationship with the appellant due to false promise of marriage made by the appellant. When the appellant subsequently backed out of the marriage proposal, she filed the FIR against him.

It is an admitted position that the appellant and Respondent No. 2 – prosecutrix were major at the time of occurrence of the offence.

The application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. moved by the petitioner has been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned order dated 12.12.2023.

The appellant has cited several cases in support of his arguments, viz. Ms. X vs. Mr. A & Ors reported in 2024 (4) SCALE 63 and Sonu @Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2021) 18 SCC 517.

Reliance can also be placed upon the judgments of this Court in Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 7 SCC 675 & Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 where a distinction was made by this Court between the mere breach of a promise & a promise which was false right from the beginning, where the maker had no intention of fulfilling it. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), the prosecutrix, despite being aware of the fact that there were several obstacles

which would prevent the accused from marrying her, still continued to engage in sexual relations with the accused. This Court was of the opinion that in such cases, it cannot be said that the accused had made a 'false promise of marriage'. Rather, it is a case of 'breach of a promise' which although made in good faith, was not subsequently fulfilled, and therefore this Court proceeded to quash the FIR in that case. It has been emphasized by this Court time and again that every breach of promise to marry ought not to be mechanically treated as a false promise of marriage. What is to be seen is whether the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by the same and it was only made to deceive the woman to engage in sexual relations.

As per the own admission of the prosecutrix it was a consensual relationship and the FIR was filed after when the appellant had broken his promise of marriage. We fail to understand what offence has been committed by the petitioner. It cannot be rape, as admitted the act was consensual.

3

In our considered view, the High Court should have used the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and should have quashed the proceedings, as the proceedings are nothing more but an abuse of process of law initiated at the hands of the respondent.

In view of above, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court dated 12.12.2023. The proceedings initiated by the respondent against the appellant are quashed and the appeal is allowed.

..........……………..............J. [ SUDHANSHU DHULIA ]

..........………….……...........J. [ PRASANNA B. VARALE ]

New Delhi; DECEMBER 18, 2024.

ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.13 SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6715 of 2024

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12.12.2023 in A482 No. 12037/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabd, Lucknow Bench)

RITESH GUPTA Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.104401/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.104402/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS and IA No.104400/2024-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 18-12-2024 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

• CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
• For Appellant(s) Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
• For Respondent(s) Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Aviral Saxena, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed

of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

(Signed order is placed on the file)