JUDGMENT : CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J. 1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-1st, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 399 of 2020, arising out of Patna Mahila P.S. Case No.131 of 2019, whereby the learned trial court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’). 2. The prosecution story, in brief, based on the written complaint of one R.K. (name hidden) before Mahila Police Station, Gardanibagh, Patna, alleging therein that she is a constable in Patna District Police and residing near Goal Ghar, Shiv Mandir on rent. In the said house, one Kishna Raj @ Krishan Kumar was also a tenant next to the informant’s room. It is stated that after introduction and talk with each other, both informant and petitioner came close to each other. After sometime, petitioner proposed to the informant for their marriage, which was accepted by the informant. After 20-22 days, petitioner asked informant for physical relation, but same was denied before marriage. It is further alleged that petitioner assured the informant that he will definitely marry with her after obtaining consent from parents but it will take some time. Thereafter, the informant and petitioner make physical relation. The informant also gave monetary help to the petitioner. The father, mother and brother of petitioner also discussed this issue with informant but, they refused to give their approval for marriage. Despite of parental refusal, petitioner assured the informant for marriage. It is further alleged that after passing considerable time, the informant created pressure upon the petitioner for marriage, which has been refused by him also then, informant feels that she has been cheated. 2.1. It is also alleged that earlier, on 13.06.2019, a complaint was also lodged with Buddha Colony Police Station, where it has been suggested to the informant to approach Gandhi Maidan Police Station. Thereafter, Gandhi Maidan police suggested to contact with Mahila Police Station. Then, on 14.06.2019, Mahila Police Station, apprehended the petitioner and the informant and petitioner both were detained in police station, where petitioner has been released from police station on the ground that there is no evidence. Thereafter, the informant lodged complaint before higher ofÏcials and then the police called the petitioner and his father. Then, on 14.06.2019, Mahila Police Station, apprehended the petitioner and the informant and petitioner both were detained in police station, where petitioner has been released from police station on the ground that there is no evidence. Thereafter, the informant lodged complaint before higher ofÏcials and then the police called the petitioner and his father. This time, father of the petitioner executed a bond regarding marriage of petitioner with informant and also signed it. Accordingly, invitation cards were also printed and distributed but, in the meantime, petitioner and his parents demanded Rs.10 Lakhs as dowry. After intervention of villagers and family members, it was fixed upto Rs. 5 Lakhs. Despite of payment of Rs. 5 Lakhs as dowry, the accused persons refused to solemnize the marriage. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, an F.I.R. being, Patna (Mahila) P.S. Case No.131 of 2019 has been instituted for commission of the offences under Sections 376 and 420 read with 34 of the IPC. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for petitioner that the present case was lodged only when marriage of O.P. No.2 could not finalized with petitioner due to certain social reasons. It is submitted that admittedly O.P. No.2 was in love affairs with petitioner, the complainant/O.P. No.2 was aged about 24 years old at the time of occurrence and was working as Constable with Bihar Police, whereas the petitioner was an unemployed person. It is submitted that as both parties living together in rented house of same building, where some financial transactions took place between them out of acquaintance, which was not paid by the petitioner within time, the present false implication was raised. It is submitted by learned counsel that even from the facial perusal of FIR and also from the statement of victim/O.P. No.2 as recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, it transpires that the parents of the petitioner was not intended to solemnize marriage of petitioner with her and this fact was informed to O.P. No.2 by petitioner himself despite of that, she established physical relation with petitioner. It is pointed out that there was no concealment of any fact on part of petitioner and the allegation of physical relation was raised in the backdrop of false promise of marriage, where the main allegation was raised for financial transactions, which alleged to be taken place between the parents of both parties. 5. It is pointed out that there was no concealment of any fact on part of petitioner and the allegation of physical relation was raised in the backdrop of false promise of marriage, where the main allegation was raised for financial transactions, which alleged to be taken place between the parents of both parties. 5. Learned counsel while arguing in this matter relied upon legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 . 6. In order to consider the grievance of the petitioner, it would be necessary to advert the contents of the F.I.R., which was lodged by opposite party no.2 on 20.11.2019. It transpires from the face of F.I.R. that opposite party no.2 was working as a Constable with Patna District police and was residing in the same premises on rent, where petitioner was living and preparing for competitive examination. It is considered through F.I.R. that O.P. No.2 falls in love with petitioner while living in same premises and, thereafter, they agreed to solemnize their marriage. It further appears from the F.I.R. that the behave of petitioner was impressive and good. After passing of few days, the petitioner asked the opposite party no.2 to establish physical relation, which was denied by her as to solemnize the marriage first on which it was assured by petitioner that he will convince his parents for their marriage and, thereafter, physical relation was established between them. The contents of FIR clearly suggest on its face that though petitioner was willing to marry opposite party no.2 out of love affairs but, it was subject to approval of his parents which was well-informed to her. Being a major lady of 24 years old, working with police, she must know the consequences of physical relation, if the parents of petitioner would not agree for their marriage. 7. The FIR also suggest that the petitioner informed his parents about this relation. They did not agree for the same and thereafter, the opposite party no.2 approached the police, whereafter, the senior police ofÏcer called the parents to Mahila Police Station and a bond was executed with assurance that they will solemnize the marriage of petitioner’s son with opposite party no.2. They did not agree for the same and thereafter, the opposite party no.2 approached the police, whereafter, the senior police ofÏcer called the parents to Mahila Police Station and a bond was executed with assurance that they will solemnize the marriage of petitioner’s son with opposite party no.2. In furtherance of said bond, it was alleged that date of marriage was fixed and card for marriage was also got printed but, as opposite party no.2 could not able to pay the demand of dowry of Rs.5 Lakh completely before the marriage, the marriage was not solemnized. It is alleged that Rs. 3 lakhs was paid to the parents of petitioner as dowry. 8. It is alleged that Rs. 3 lakhs was paid to the parents of petitioner as dowry. 8. Almost same fact, O.P. No.2/victim reiterated through her statement as recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, which is reproducing hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:- ^^ Statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. 1- eSa ;g c;ku viuh ethZ ls] fcuk fdlh tksj tcjnLrh ds ns jgh gwaA 2- eSa xksy?kj f'koeafnj ds ikl fdjk, ds edku esa jgrh Fkh d`".kk dqekj mQZ d`".k dq0 jktk mlh esa iwoZ ls jg jgk FkkA ogka ij esjh tku igpku d`".k dq0 ls gqbZ] ckrphr gksus ls geyksx ds chp izse gks x;kA fQj eq>s 'kkjhfjd laca/k cukus ds fy, ncko Mkyus yxk rks eq>s cksyk fd 'kknh rks rqEgh ls d:axkA fQj esjs lkFk 'kkjhfjd laca/k cuk;kA mlds ekrk&firk dks gekjs izse laca/k dh tkudkjh feyh rks og gekjs 'kknh ls bUdkj djus yxsA rc d`".k cksys og esjs xkftZ;u gS] eSa euk ywaxk mudks 'kknh ds fy,A blh rjg le>k cq>kdj esjs lkFk dbZ ckj 'kkjhfjd laca/k cuk;kA fQj mlds dqN eghus ckn ls esjs ls ckrphr de dj fn;kA tc eSaus 'kknh ds fy, ncko Mkyk rks eq>s mlus 'kknh ls bUdkj dj fn;k cksyk fd rqe tSls NksVh tkr ls eSa 'kknh ugha d:axkA eSaus rqEgkjk bLrseky fd;k gSA rc eSaus efgyk Fkkuk eas vkosnu fn, 1 yM+dk idM+k;kA mlds xkftZ;u dks cqyk;k x;k] ysfdu izksRlkfgr djds mls NksM+ fn;k x;kA fQjdks eSaus cksyk fd eSa ojh; iqfyl v/kh{kd ds ikl tkmaxh U;k; ysus rc d`".kk ds firk dks cqyk;k x;k vkSj ij mlusfd;k ftlesa mlus cksyk fd esa /kqe/kke ls 'kknh djsaxsA 'kknh dk ckrphr gqvk d`".kk vkSj esjs firkth ds chp :i;s 5]00]000@& ij ckr r; gqvk] ftlesa dqN uxn ys pqds gSaA 11-7-2019 dks 'kknh dk gqvkA /kku dk yxu vk pqdk FkkA “kknh dk card caV pqdk FkkA 5&6 fnu 'kknh ds igys NqV~Vh ugha jgus ds dkj.k 'kknh ds fy, Vy x;kA tc eq>s yxk fd og 'kknh ls bUdkj dj jgs gS fd D;ksafd 'kknh dk ugha dj jgs Fks NqV~Vh ugha gS dk cgkuk ysdj rc eSaus efgyk Fkkuk esa lqfpr fd;kA rc vkt c;ku nsus vk;h gwaA Statement of Rinku Kumari has been recorded with free will before this court. i<+k vkSj lgh ik;k uke&fjadq dqekjh fnukad%& 28-11-2019 Richa Ranjan JM 1st Class Patna 28/11/2019” 9. i<+k vkSj lgh ik;k uke&fjadq dqekjh fnukad%& 28-11-2019 Richa Ranjan JM 1st Class Patna 28/11/2019” 9. From bare perusal of the contents of F.I.R. as discussed above as well as the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, leave no doubt that on the basis of the allegation as they stands, following three important features emerges, which are as under:- (i) The relationship between the petitioner and O.P. No.2 was of consensual in nature; (ii) The parties were in relationship for about one year and; (iii) Subsequently, the petitioner and his parents refused to marry O.P. No.2 for non- fulfilment of sufÏcient dowry as demanded, causing registration of the present F.I.R. 10. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), while dealing with the similar situation, the principle of law which must govern the situations like the present were enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following observations:- “Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a “misconception of fact” that vitiates the woman’s “consent”. On the other hand, a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it. ...” 11. It would be further apposite to reproduce para -10 of the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2021) 18 SCC 517 , which is as under:- “10. To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the “consent” of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.” 12. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.” 12. Bearing in mind the tests which have been enunciated in the above decision, this Court is of the view that even assuming all the allegations in the F.I.R. are correct, no offence as alleged has been made out. There is no allegation to the effect that the promise to marry given to opposite party no.2 was false from very inception. On the contrary, it appears from the contents of the F.I.R. that it was well-informed to opposite party no.2 regarding prior consent of his parents for their marriage. 13. Accordingly, by taking note of the legal ratio as available through Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra) and also of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar (supra), the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-1st, Patna in Sessions Trial No.399 of 2020 arising out of Patna Mahila P.S. Case No.131 of 2019 qua petitioner with all its consequential proceedings is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 14. The application stands allowed. 15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial court forthwith.