Patna High Court – Orders
Kiran Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 15 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16637 of 2023
Arising Out Of Ps. Case No.-1616 Year-2020 Thana- Gopalganj Complaint Case District-
Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Kiran Kumari D/O Ramji Gupta R/O Village- Kaluwad Bagahi, P.S.-
Kateya, District- Gopalganj
2. Guddu Devi D/O Ramji Gupta R/O Village- Kaluwad Bagahi, P.S.- Kateya,
District- Gopalganj
3. Nanhe Sah @ Nanhe Kumar Gupta Son Of Ramji Gupta R/O Village-
Kaluwad Bagahi, P.S.- Kateya, District- Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Srikanti Devi Wife Of Late Krishna Gupta, D/O Devraj Gupta R/O Village-
Mainudeen Basdila, P.S.- Baghauch Ghat, District- Dewariya (U.P.)
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
3 15-05-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The present application has been filed by the petitioners
invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for quashing the
order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No. 1616 of 2020 whereby
and whereunder the learned Court has taken cognizance under
Sections 498A, 376, 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation is that the complainant was married with the
elder brother of the petitioner no. 3 and he died subsequently.
Thereafter, the allegation is that the family proposed the marriage of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16637 of 2023(3) dt.15-05-2026
2/4
petitioner no. 3 with the complainant. The petitioner no. 3 assured
marriage and established physical relationship on that pretext and
refused to marry her later.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the victim
girl is aged about 29 years. If she entered into the relationship with
petitioner no. 3 on the false pretext of marriage then, it was a
consensual relationship between two consenting adults to which no
criminality could be attached. Rest of the two petitioners have
nothing to do with the case.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer
made by the counsel for the petitioners.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this is a
case of consensual relationship between two adults which may be
termed as illicit and not illegal in terms of judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs The
State Of Maharashtra reported in (2009) 9 SCC 608 has held that:
“16. 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. The “consent” of a woman under
Section 375 is vitiated on the ground of a
“misconception of fact” where such misconception was
the basis for her choosing to engage in the said act. In
Deepak Gulati [Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana,
(2013) 7 SCC 675 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 660] this Court
observed : (SCC pp. 682-84, paras 21 & 24)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16637 of 2023(3) dt.15-05-2026
3/4“21. … There is a distinction between the mere breach
of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus,
the court must examine whether there was made, at an
early stage a false promise of marriage by the accused;
and whether the consent involved was given after
wholly understanding the nature and consequences of
sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the
prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on
account of her love and passion for the accused, and
not solely on account of misrepresentation made to her
by the accused, or where an accused on account of
circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or
which were beyond his control, was unable to marry
her, despite having every intention to do so. Such cases
must be treated differently.
24. Hence, it is evident that there must be adequate
evidence to show that at the relevant time i.e. at the
initial stage itself, the accused had no intention
whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim.
There may, of course, be circumstances, when a person
having the best of intentions is unable to marry the
victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances.
The “failure to keep a promise made with respect to a
future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very
clear from the evidence available, does not always
amount to misconception of fact. In order to come
within the meaning of the term “misconception of
fact”, the fact must have an immediate relevance”.
Section 90 IPC cannot be called into aid in such a
situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and
fasten criminal liability on the other, [Ed. : The matter
between two asterisks has been emphasised in
original.] unless the court is assured of the fact that
from the very beginning, the accused had never really
intended to marry her [Ed. : The matter between two
asterisks has been emphasised in original.] .”
18. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16637 of 2023(3) dt.15-05-2026
4/4
act.”
7. Therefore, order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No.
1616 of 2020 is hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
(Ansul, J)
Siddharth Soni/-
U T
