# Neeleshramchandani & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1133
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 450 of 2025
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Abdul Shahid
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neeleshramchandani-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53920
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

1 All. Neeleshramchandani & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1133
the court, a fresh protest petition is filed giving full details, we fail to understand as to why it
should not be maintainable."

20. It is relevant to be noted that in Subrata Choudhury @ Samtosh Chourdhury (supra), the
judgments of Mahesh Chand (supra) and Samta Naidu (supra) have been considered and
thereafter the Court has held that the second complaint is not maintainable. The important fact is
also to be flagged that the factual aspect of the present case is identical to the case of Subrata
Choudhury @ Samtosh Chourdhury (supra). Therefore, this Court cannot take a different opinion
and the law declared by the Supreme Court in Subrata Choudhury @ Samtosh Chourdhury
(supra) is binding.

21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly,
the application is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint No.188 of 2017, under
Sections 323, 325, 326, 504, 506 I.P.C. (Anil Singh vs. Vikas and others), pending in the court of
Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh as well as impugned orders
dated 01.04.2021 and 10.1.2020, are quashed.

22. Before parting, one fact is also important to be noted that the revision preferred by
opposite party no.2 has been dismissed by the revisional court against acceptance of final report
vide order dated 1.8.2023. No one can be left remedy less. In case opposite party no.2 is aggrieved,
he may take recourse to law against the revisional order dated 1.8.2023.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1133
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 450 of 2025

Neeleshramchandani & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the FIR registered under Sections 351(2), 352, and 69 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of the DP Act,
deserved to be quashed?

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 183 - Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 69, 351(2), 352 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections - 3, 4 - Writ
Petition - filed for quashing the impugned FIR - lodged under Sections 351(2), 352, 69 BNS and Sections 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act - allegation of dowry demand and false promise of marriage - during
investigation Section 69 BNS is add - statements of informant recorded - petitioners argued relationship was
consensual, genuine, and marriage preparations were made, hence no deceit - respondents contended false
1134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
promise was made to extract dowry - Court finds that Section 69 BNS punishes deceit, not disappointment,
and evidence showed genuine engagement and marriage arrangements, not false inducement - FIR timing
suggested retaliation - FIR can be quashed in part if allegations under certain sections are not made out -
held, ingredients of Section 69 BNS not made out - hence, FIR quashed to the extent of Section 69 BNS -
however, investigation under Sections 351(2), 352 BNS may continue - Interim protection against arrest
extended until police report is filed - writ petition partly allowed, accordingly.
(Para - 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
 Writ Petition partly allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Samdhan v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 5001 of 2025)
Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024)
Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 2025)
Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608
Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi (AIR 2025 SC 33)
Manish Yadav v. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 333 of 2025)
B.N. John v. State of U.P. (2025 INSC 4)
Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. (2025 Supreme (SC) 1667)
Ankit Hukumchand Malviya v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 734)
Deepak v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine MP 2689)
Yashwant Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 SCC OnLine Chh 3712)
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 409
Nafisa v. State of U.P. (2023 SCC OnLine All 17)
Shakir-Ul-Hassan v. UT of J&K (CRM(M) No. 216 of 2025)
Lovely Salhotra v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 391

LIST OF ACTS
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Writ petition - quashing of FIR - False promise of marriage - Consensual relationship - Deceit &
disappointment - Dowry demand - Interim protection - partly allowed - Investigation continues.

CASE ARISING FROM
FIR dated 12.12.2024, Case Crime No. 566 of 2024, P.S. Sector 63, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Rajrshi Gupta.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Amit Sinha, Shri Shivam Shukla, Shri Aniket Gupta and AGA.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
&
Hon'ble Abdul Shahid, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. Sri Amit Sinha
for the State-respondents and Sri Shivam Shukla & Sri Aniket Gupta, learned counsel appearing for
the informant.

2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report dated
12.12.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 566 of 2024, under Sections 352, 351(2), 69 of Bharatiya
1 All. Neeleshramchandani & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1135
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the "B.N.S."), Police Station - Sector 63, Noida,
District -Gautam Buddh Nagar, and for a direction to the respondent authorities not to arrest the
petitioners in pursuance of the impugned first information report.

3. Initially a first information report was lodged on 12.12.2024 which had given rise to Case
Crime No. 566 of 2024, under Sections 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "D.P. Act"). It was alleged that the petitioner
no. 1, Neelesh Ramchandani, was known to the first informant and had entered into a marriage
alliance by having an engagement ceremony in the month of June, 2023. The marriage was to take
place on the 12.11.2024. Before the marriage could take place, on the 04.11.2024, it had been
alleged in the first information report that the father of the petitioner no.1, who was also made an
accused and had been arrayed as petitioner no. 2, had demanded Rs. 50 lacs in cash, one Fortuner
car and a flat in Allahabad. When this demand, as per the first information report, was not met by
the informant's father then the father of the petitioner no. 1 misbehaved with the father of the first
informant and said that he would marry off his son to a family which would fulfil his demands.
Preceding the main allegation, a detail was given as to how the first informant came to know the
petitioner no. 1. It had been stated in the first information report itself that the respondent no. 4 had,
after doing her B.A. LL.B., joined National Law University, Jodhpur for the purpose of doing
LL.M. Also the petitioner no. 1 joined the National Law University, Jodhpur for doing the LL.M.
Course. Both had joined the National Law University, Jodhpur in the year 2020. Even while doing
the LL.B. Course, the two had studied at Lucknow and though they were known to each other, they
were not very close. However, since the petitioner no. 1 was known to the respondent no. 4 from
before and since he requested for a friendship, they both went along talking. In the first information
report itself it was stated that when both of them had passed their LL.M. Course, the respondent no.
4 had also informed the petitioner no. 1 that she was of a backward caste. However, the petitioner
no. 1 had continued his earlier commitment that he had liked the respondent no. 4 and that he
would talk to his family with regard to marriage with her. He had also convinced her that he would
marry her and nobody else. At that point of time, the father of the respondent no. 4 was in a job in
the Electricity Department at Noida and there the petitioners had gone to visit him also. When the
petitioners had gone to visit the father of the respondent no. 4 then the uncle of the respondent no. 4
namely Sri Harswaroop (mama) was also present. The parents of the respondent no. 4 had agreed to
the marriage. However, the marriage was not solemnized immediately but was to take place after
two years. It has been stated in the first information report that the petitioner no. 1 was practicing in
the High Court and the respondent no. 4 was preparing for the Judicial Services.

4. For quashing of the first information report dated 12.12.2024 registered as Case Crime No.
566 of 2024, the instant writ petition was filed. However, initially the matter was referred to the
Mediation & Conciliation Centre, Allahabad by this Court on 15.01.2025 so that conciliation might
take place between the parties. While the matter was being looked into by the Mediation Centre,
the investigation by the Investigating Officer had continued. On 09.04.2025 when the mediation
failed, the matter once again came before this Court. On 28.04.2025, the following order was
passed by this Court:

"In Re : Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 3 of 2025
1136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Suchita Mehrotra,
learned counsel for informant and learned AGA for the State.

2. Amendment application is allowed, the amendment be carried out forthwith.

3. Learned counsel for the informant, if any, objection may file counter affidavit on or
before next date fixed.

In Re : Writ Petition

1. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Suchita Mehrotra,
learned counsel for informant and learned AGA for the State.

2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 12.12.2024
registered as Case Crime No.566 of 2024, under Sections 352, 351(2), BNS, 2023 and Section 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Sector 63, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.

3. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.1.2025, has referred the matter to
the Mediation and Reconciliation Center of this Court and as per report, the parties could not
resolve the matter amicably. Lastly, we were inclined to accord one more indulge to the parties for
settling the matter amicably.

4. Today, Ms. Suchita Mehrotra, learned counsel for the informant states that there is
hardly any chance of settling the matter through mediation though previously it was failed.

4. Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA states that the matter was referred to Mediation and
Reconciliation Center of this Court vide order dated 15.1.2025. He fairly states that once the matter
was referred to Mediation and Reconciliation Centre, definitely the investigation must be at very
snail pace. He further submits that some more time may be accorded to him to place on record the
current status of the on-going investigation.

5. On his request the matter is adjourned.

6. Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners while pressing the amendment
application submits that vide order dated 15.1.2025, the matter was referred to Mediation and
Reconciliation center and the report of Registrar AHCMCC was submitted on 10.4.2025 and while
referring the matter to mediation, the Court has accorded interim relief in favour of the petitioners
to the effect "till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in
above mentioned case".

7. He submits that Investigating Officer was fully conscious with the said order and in
arbitrary manner had given notice under Section 179 of the BNSS to the petitioners on 6.2.2025.
He submits that there is hardly any scope of a fair investigation in the instant matter, as the
Investigating Officer is definitely prejudiced. However, we direct the D.C.P., concerned to
1 All. Neeleshramchandani & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1137
investigate the matter fairly, impartially and the current status of the investigation be apprised on
the next date fixed through an affidavit not below the rank of D.C.P.

8. List this matter in top 26.5.2025 in top ten cases.

9. Interim order, if any, stands extended."

5. In the meantime the Investigating Officer had started off with the investigation and had
during investigation concluded that no case under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act was made out. He had
however concluded that the case had to be also investigated under Section 69 of the B.N.S. The
petitioners had filed an application for amending the writ petition on 16.04.2025. The amendment
application was allowed on 28.04.2025 itself and a copy of the amended writ petition was placed
before the Court on 06.08.2025. With regard to bringing on record of the investigation which had
led to the petitioners being charged also under Section 69 of B.N.S., an affidavit was filed by the
learned A.G.A. on 06.09.2025. In effect after the amendment was allowed, the writ petition now
was challenging the first information report dated 12.12.2024 which had given rise to Case Crime
No. 566 of 2024 and the investigation was taking place under Sections 69, 352, 351(2) of B.N.S.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has while making his submissions chiefly submitted that no
case under Section 69 of B.N.S. was made out. While making his submissions, he read out the
Section 69 of B.N.S. to the Court.

He submitted that the following ingredients were essential for making out an offence
under Section 69 of B.N.S. :-

(i) If a man had sexual intercourse with a woman and

(ii) The sexual intercourse was a result of a certain deceitful means adopted by the
man or was a result of such promise to marry the woman without any intention of getting married;

(iii) In Section 69 of B.N.S. itself, "deceitful means" has been explained as (a) an
inducement by a man for having sexual intercourse with a woman by making false promise of
either employment or promotion or (b) having sexual intercourse after making a false promise,
which would also include a false promise of marrying that particular woman in the future by
suppressing his identity.

6. Learned counsel submits that if we peruse the Section 69 of the B.N.S., the only inevitable
conclusion is that offence would be made out if a man is able to convince a woman into having
sexual intercourse by either making a false promise of marriage which had to take place on a future
date or if he induces a woman to have sexual intercourse by deceiving her to an extent that she
believes that he would give her employment or would help her in getting promoted in her job.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that a false promise to marry would not include a
situation where voluntarily the man and the woman have sexual relationship after they sincerely
believe that they were in a good and a healthy relationship. He submits that if all was going well
and suddenly there is a breakdown in the relationship then the ingredients of Section 69 of B.N.S.
would not be there and the offence as is contemplated under Section 69 of B.N.S. would not be
1138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made out. He submits that the section in question punishes deceit and not disappointment. In the
instant case, learned counsel for the petitioners states that a bare perusal of the first information
report itself shows that after the petitioner no. 1 had got into a relationship with the respondent no.
4 when they joined the LL.M. Course at the National Law University, Jodhpur, they first became friends and
thereafter they had all the intentions of getting married. There was absolutely no element of false promise in
whatever the petitioner no.1 was doing. Definitely, there was no deceitful means adopted to deceive the
respondent no. 4 to believe that the petitioner no. 1 would help her get a job or would get her promoted.
Definitely there was no false promise to marry. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even a
perusal of the first information report shows that the engagement between the petitioner no. 1 and the
respondent no. 4 took place in June, 2023 and the marriage was to take place on 12.11.2024. However,
suddenly when the marriage, was, at the behest of the petitioners called off on 04.11.2024 the first
information report was lodged. He submits that initially the first information report did not disclose any
reason for calling off of the marriage. He submits that the first information report was absolutely silent vis-avis reasons for calling off the marriage. To establish the fact that the petitioners were sincere about the
marriage and that there was no false promise on the part of the petitioner no. 1 with regard to the
solemnization of the marriage, learned counsel for the petitioners had taken the Court through the record of
the writ petition wherein it had been stated that the invitation cards were printed and issued to the relatives of
the petitioners. Also, since the marriage was to take place in Meerut, the petitioners had also arranged a
photographer for taking the photographs. The reception was to be held at Prayagraj in Hotel Yatrik, therefore
Hotel Yatrik was also booked by giving Rs. 3,00,000/- from the account of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3. Also
for the marriage to take place in Meerut Rs. 2,50,000/- were given to Hotel Sapphire Grand on 27.09.2024.
Additionally, travel plans and tickets were made available to the petitioners and their relatives to attend the
marriage. Needless to mention, learned counsel for the petitioners states, that various dresses etc. were also
stitched for the purpose of marriage. Definitely in the first information report there was no mention of the fact
that the marriage was called off on account of the various news reports in the newspapers that the father of
the respondent no. 4 had got suspended from his job. It has additionally been mentioned that the father of the
respondent no. 4 had made various threatening telephone calls to the petitioners and had also come to the
house of the petitioners threatening the petitioners. Multiple complaints of the respondent no. 4 and her father
to the police had led to various notices being sent by the police to the petitioners. This had led the petitioners
to file a writ petition being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 22191 of 2024 (Neelesh Ramchandani and 2
Ors versus State of U.P. and 3 Ors.) with the following prayers:

"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to:

a) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for
the records and quashing the impugned notices dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure no. 14), 21.11.2024
(Annexure no. 15), and 22.11.2024 (Annexure no. 16) issued by Respondent No. 3 - SHO, Mahila
Thana, Sector 39, Noida, Commissionerate Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, pursuant to the
complaint dated 05.11.2024 filed by Respondent No. 4

(Annexure no. 17).

b) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the Respondents not to take any coercive steps / measures against the Petitioners in
connection with the complaint dated 05.11.2024 filed by Respondent No. 4. (Annexure no. 17)
1 All. Neeleshramchandani & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1139

c) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction referring the matter to the Mediation
Centre of this Hon'ble High Court for an amicable resolution in pursuance of the complaint dated
05.11.2024 filed by the Respondent no. 4 (Annexure no. 17)

Alternatively

d) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction commanding the Respondents
concerned to allow the petitioners to participate in preliminary enquiry / mediation through Video
conferencing at district Gautam Budh Nagar pursuant to the Complaint dated 05.11.2024 filed by
the Resprondent no 4. (Annexure no. 17)

e) Pass any other orders or directions that this Hon'ble Court may deem just and
proper in the interest of justice."

7. The writ petition was however rejected as being premature and was allowed to be
withdrawn by the Court. When a full fledged first information report was lodged on 12.12.2024, the
instant writ petition was filed and as has been stated earlier in the judgment that when the case was
also being investigated under Section 69 of B.N.S., the writ petition was also amended. Learned
counsel for the petitioners has in effect challenged the first information report and has stated that no
case under Section 69 of the B.N.S. was made out.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has made the following submissions:

(I) He submits that the allegations made in the present case hinges entirely on the
claim of the respondent no. 4 that the petitioner no. 1 established physical relationship with her on a
false pretext of marriage. He submitted that there was no false promise made by the petitioner no. 1
which could be said to be a promise only to have sexual intercourse. He submitted that if the first
information report is perused it definitely does not speak about any sexual intercourse. However,
even if the subsequent statements of the respondent no. 4 which were recorded under Section 183
of B.N.S.S. are seen, they were all to the effect that there was continuous physical relationship
between the parties for a prolonged period and that the relationship had continued because of the
fact that even the respondent no. 4 had all through liked the petitioner no. 1.

(II) The petitioner no. 1 did not lure the respondent no. 4 solely for physical pleasure
and then had vanished. The relationship had continued for a period which commenced in the year
2020. The statements of the respondent no. 4 themselves went to show that both the petitioner no. 1
and the respondent no. 4 had remained close and were emotionally involved and thus if there was
any physical intimacy that occurred during the course of continuous relationship and it cannot be
retrospectively branded as having commenced on the basis of a false promise.

(III) Simply because the marriage did not take place owing to breakdown of
relationship, even if it was from the side of the petitioner no. 1, it could not be said that if there was
any physical relationship then it was on the basis of a false promise.
1140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(IV) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that when earlier in the first
information report the respondent no. 4 had not mentioned even a word about there being physical
relationship and thereafter subsequently she had given the statements before the Magistrate then
that would also be taken as a situation where she was falsely trying to implicate the petitioners.

(V) Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that though the factum of the physical
relationship was not admitted to the petitioner, even if it had occurred as per the statement of the respondent
no. 4, then the ingredients of Section 69 of B.N.S. were not made out. A bare perusal of the statements of the
respondent no. 4 shows, that if there were consensual and voluntarily physical relationships between the
parties, the respondent no. 4 was as much in relationship with the petitioner no. 1 as the petitioner no. 1 was
with her. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Samdhan
versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No. 5001 of 2025 and submitted that if
there were consensual and voluntary relationship and the acts of the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 4
showed that they were in a relationship which was devoid of any coercion, fraud or misrepresentation then
definitely no offence under Section 69 of B.N.S. was made out. In this regard learned counsel for the
petitioners has also relied upon the following judgments passed in Biswajyoti Chatterjee versus State of
West Bengal & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024; Rajnish Singh @ Soni versus State of U.P. And
Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 2025; Kunal Chatterjee versus The State of West Bengal
& Ors.; Pramod Suryabhan Pawar versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2019) 9 SCC 608;
Prashant versus State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2025 SC 33; Manish Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 333 of 2025; B.N. John versus State of U.P. & Anr. 2025 INSC 4 and in
Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 1667 and
submitted that when there was a relationship between the parties (between the petitioner no. 1 and the
respondent no. 4) then there could not be any element of false promise/deceit and he therefore prayed that the
writ petition be allowed and the first information report be quashed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that if all the judgments are perused
then it becomes clear that the judicial expectation is that Section 69 of B.N.S. punishes deceit and
not disappointment. The Court has to assess

(a) Whether the promise of marriage was false from its very inception

(b) Whether the F.I.R. timing suggests retaliation

(c) Whether objective evidence "chats, messages, photos" supports the claim of the
alleged victim.

(d) Whether parties are adults and capable of giving consent

(e) Whether custodial interrogation is truly necessary (in cases of this nature, it rarely is)

Learned counsel for the petitioners further relying upon Ankit Hukumchand Malviya versus
State of Maharashtra reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 734 submitted that every romantic failure
cannot be painted as a deceit. Similarly, relying upon Deepak versus State of Madhya Pradesh and
Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 2689 submitted that the High Court warned and stated that criminal law
1 All. Neeleshramchandani & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1141
cannot become a tool for attribution between consenting adults. Similarly, relying upon a judgment of the
Chhattisgarh High Court in Yashwant Nirmalkar versus State of Chhattisgarh 2025 SCC Online 3712
he submitted that the prosecution would have to establish that the promise was false from the very
inception, otherwise, the offence would not be there. He therefore submitted that as per the judgments of
the above High Courts the boundary between deceit and disappointment had to be preserved and it had to
be ensured that criminal law remains a shield against fraud and not a weapon for settling personal dispute.

9. However, Sri Shivam Shukla and Sri Aniket Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
no. 4 and Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. submitted that the case had to be first investigated into and
thereafter only a definite conclusion could to be drawn by the Investigating Officer as to whether any case
under Section 69 of B.N.S. was made out. They have further submitted that the case was not that of failed
relationship but was a case where the petitioner had made false promises of marriage only to take dowry
from the family of the respondent no. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 relied upon a
judgment of Supreme Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and
Others, (2021) 19 SCC 409 and submitted that no interference be done by the Court. On this issue,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 also relied upon judgment of this Court in Nafisa and
others versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine All 17. He also relied upon
judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court at Srinagar in Shakir-Ul-Hassan @ Ors.
Versus UT of J&K And Anr. passed in CRM(M) No. 216 of 2025.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that so far as Section 69
of the B.N.S. is concerned, definitely an offence would be made out only if there was a false promise made
by a man to a woman with regard to a marriage and thereafter he had had physical relationship with the
woman. The woman would believe the man to the extent that he, in fact, would get married despite the fact
that he had no intention of really marrying her. In the instant case, we find from the bare reading of the first
information report itself that the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 4 had done their LL.B. Course
from the same college. After they had done their LL.B. Course, they had joined National Law University,
Jodhpur from where they did their LL.M. Course. It was not just that the respondent no.4 was lured by the
petitioner no. 1 to have physical relationship because he was making false promises of a future marriage
but we find that the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 4 had began to like each other to the extent that
they had become very intimate and were into a consensual and voluntarily physical relationship. The said
physical relationship continued to the extent that in the month of May, 2023 the petitioner no. 1 and the
respondent no. 4 had also got engaged. There was not only aforesaid relationship between the petitioner
no. 1 and the respondent no. 4, but also the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had visited the family of the respondent
no. 4 and as per the version of the first information report itself the parents of the respondent no. 4 had
agreed to the marriage of the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 4 and that they had also given the
petitioner no. 1 a silver coin in recognition of the growing relationship. By no stretch of imagination can it
be said that there was any luring or misrepresentation done by the petitioner no. 1 to the respondent no. 4
to make her enter into a forced or deceitful physical relationship. We find that there was also a liking by
the respondent no. 4 of the petitioner no. 1. We, from the perusal of the record and first information report,
find that even the date of the marriage had been fixed and the arrangements had been made for the
solemnization of the marriage. However, the relationship into which the petitioner no. 1 and the
respondent no. 4 had got into became sour and had irretrievably broken down.
1142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. We are definitely of the view that Section 69 of B.N.S. punishes deceit and not disappointment.
In the instant case, we find that there was an agreement between the parties to marry and there was in fact
no unilateral or deceitful promise by the petitioner no. 1 to the respondent no. 4 that he would marry her in
near future. The agreement therefore to marry was very much in existence between the parties. There was
no false promise from either side. We are also of the view that the timing of the first information report
was such which was not congenial to the respondent no. 4, it having been lodged at a time when the
petitioner no. 1 thought that marriage was not possible for one reason or the other. We are also of the
considered view that the evidence which has been provided in the writ petition definitely was to the extent
that there was no false promise of marriage or deceitful means from the side of the petitioner no. 1.

12. Having found that there was no false promise to marry or there was any adopting of deceitful
means on the basis of which relations went to the extent as had been mentioned by the respondent no. 4,
we are of the considered view that no ingredients which constituted the offence under Section 69 of B.N.S.
were made out. We are conscious of the fact that there are two other sections i.e. Section 351(2) and 352 of
B.N.S. under which the first information report was also lodged. As per the judgment of Supreme Court in
Lovely Salhotra And Another versus State (NCT of Delhi) And Another reported in (2018) 12 SCC
391 the first information report could definitely be quashed in part.

13. We are thus of the considered view that the first information report so far as it contemplates of an
investigation under Section 69 of the B.N.S. is to be quashed. The first information report which gave rise
to Case Crime No. 566 of 2024, under Sections 352, 351(2), 69 of B.N.S. is quashed to the extent it was
lodged under Section 69 of B.N.S. The investigation under Sections 351(2), 352 of B.N.S. shall continue.

14. However, since there was an interim order protecting the petitioners from any coercive action
being taken against them during the investigation, we provide that the investigation may now go on under
Section 351(2), 352 of B.N.S. However, the petitioners shall not be arrested till such time as the police
report is submitted.

15. The writ petition stands partly allowed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1142
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 15470 of 2025

Veena Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration