JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the FIR in connection with Mihijam P.S. Case No.48 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 493 of the Indian Penal Code and the said case is still pending before Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamtara. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case is going on and charge-sheet has not yet been submitted. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner promised to marry the informant after contacting her over phone and on the promise of marriage on 23.06.2022, established physical relation with the informant. On 02.11.2022, the petitioner solemnized marriage with the informant in her house and after that, established physical relationship with her and took her to several places and established physical relationship but he is not taking the informant to his house. The parents of the petitioner also promised that they will get solemnized court marriage of the petitioner and the informant and obtained her signature but now the petitioner is refusing to marry the informant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Matiyas Sanga vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in Cr.M.P. No.2191 of 2025 dated 19.08.2025 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonu @ Subash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2021) 18 SCC 517 , in which case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has quashed the F.I.R. and proceedings arising therefrom, keeping in view the following facts of that case:- (i) relationship between the accused and victim was consensual in nature; (ii) parties were in relationship for a period of one and a half years; (iii) subsequently, the accused person expressed disinclination to marry the victim. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the fact of this case is exactly same as that of the case of Sonu @ Subash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (supra). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the fact of this case is exactly same as that of the case of Sonu @ Subash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (supra). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in the case of Matiyas Sanga vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra), this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prashant Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2024 INSC 879 , in para-18 of which, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is inconceivable that the complainant would continue to meet the accused person or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with him in the absence of any voluntary consent on her part and it is submitted that in view of the fact that both the petitioner and the victim of this case are major persons, at best, it is a case of consensual sexual relationship between the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Maheshwar Tigga vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in AIR 2020 SC 4535 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, a consent given under a misconception of fact is no consent in the eyes of law but the misconception of fact has to be in proximity of time to the occurrence and cannot be spread over a period of four years; when such consent is given for a considerable period of time continuously, the consent of the prosecutrix was treated to be a conscious and informed choice made by her after due deliberation. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kunal Chatterjee vs. The State of West Bengal & Others dated 29.07.2025 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7004 of 2025 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that promise to marriage and the subsequent physical relationship between the two with consent would not amount to rape. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner then relies upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prithivirajan vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police & Another vide order dated 20.01.2025 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.12663 of 2022, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that only because physical relations were established based on a promise to marry, it will not amount to rape. For the offence of rape to be attracted, the following conditions need to be satisfied:- (i) The accused promised to marry the prosecutrix solely to secure consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning; (ii) That the prosecutrix gave her consent for sexual relations by being directly influenced by such false promise of marriage. relying upon its own judgment in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 and also in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 347. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. Admittedly, the informant and the petitioner were well known to each other and having a continuous friendship in the past. The FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of about three years. The petitioner has given a lot of money by way of transferring money to the Bank Account of the victim/informant regularly. When the petitioner demanded his money back, this false case has been foisted against the petitioner to harass him. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 10. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that first time, the petitioner forcibly established physical relationship with the victim; so, the same amounts to the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 11. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that there is no material available in the record to show that the informant has stated anything to suggest that the petitioner established physical relationship with her against her will or without her consent nor is there any allegation that the consent for physical relationship of the informant/victim was obtained by making any false promise of marriage or that the petitioner did not have the intention to marry the informant since the beginning nor is there any allegation of the consent of the informant being obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or hurt nor is there any allegation that the victim was less than 18 years of age on the date of first occurrence of physical relationship between the parties. 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is the admitted case of the informant that the petitioner has married the informant in her house but the only grievance of the informant is that the petitioner is not taking the informant in her matrimonial house that is the house of the petitioner himself. This, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as admittedly, the victim and the petitioner are major persons and physical relation between them was continued for a period of a little less than three years. 13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the accused promised to marry the prosecutrix solely to secure consensual sexual relationship without having any intention of fulfilling the promise nor is there any allegation of false promise of marriage. Hence, the question of the prosecutrix given her consent for sexual relationship by being directly influenced by any false promise of marriage does not arise. 14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is a non-cognizable offence and the FIR cannot be registered in connection with a non-cognizable offence alone. 15. 14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is a non-cognizable offence and the FIR cannot be registered in connection with a non-cognizable offence alone. 15. In view of the discussions made above, since the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner even if the entire allegations made in the FIR and the other materials available in the record are considered to be true in their entirety, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the FIR in connection with Mihijam P.S. Case No.48 of 2025 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 16. Accordingly, the FIR in connection with Mihijam P.S. Case No.48 of 2025 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 17. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.