State v. Swatantra Laxmikand Dixit, arising out of Case Crime No

applicant has also challenged charge sheet No. 47/2024, dated 11.06.2024 summoning order dated

15.01.2025, passed in the aforesaid case by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the 2 NA528 No. 34972 of 2025 applicant that first information report was lodged by the prosecutrix on 12.04.2024, alleging that she belongs to Scheduled Caste category and had made her profile on- line portal known as Jeevan Sathi.Com and is the applicant who had responded to her profile on the Jeevan Sathi.com portal where entire biodata of the applicant was also mentioned. In the said biodata of the applicant it was clearly stated that he has never been married and he worked in reputed company and earning Rs.10-15 lacks per annum. Considering the aforesaid information available on the Portal, the applicant and prosecutrix started communicating with each other and accordingly, they decided to get married, but actual marriage was postoponed at the request of applicant who has stated that he is not in good financial health. Both the parties continued to meet each other during the said period and the applicant also requested certain money from the prosecutrix during the said period indicating his poor financial condition, who continued to pay money and nearly around Rs.5,00,000/- were paid by her to the applicant. Whenever, question of marriage was raised by the prosecutrix, the applicant had replied that he will marry only when his financial condition improves.

4. Apart from above, the applicant got the prosecutrix sign a stamp paper and informed her that they were married and it in these circumstances, the applicant maintained physical relationship with the prosecutrix and she also became pregnant and informed this fact to the 3 NA528 No. 34972 of 2025 applicant. It is stated that the applicant sent some medicines online to the prosecutrix and asked her to take those medicines and the moment she took the medicines her pregnancy got aborted and at this stage it is alleged that the applicant informed her that those medicines were for abortion. Even after the said incident, the applicant is said to promise the prosecutrix to marry her and they were in regular touch with each other and even after the applicant met with an accident, the prosecutrix took care of him and they started living at Prayagraj and during this period also they maintained physical relationship.

5. It is during the period applicant and prosecutrix were living at Prayaraj, the prosecutrix had occasion to look into the mobile phone of the applicant and she discovered photographs of a lady and after which she came to know that the applicant is previously married and when she asked the applicant about the same, he accepted the fact of he being previously married and having a child and at this stage applicant refused to marry prosecutrix and accordingly, first information report was lodged.

6. During investigation, statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which has been annexed alongwith present application, this Court finds that she has supported the prosecution case where she has stated that the applicant had maintained sexual relations with her on false promise of marriage. 4 NA528 No. 34972 of 2025

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that long length of relationship between the parties clearly demonstrates that they had physical relationship on the basis of consent and it cannot be said that such relationship was based on false promise of marriage. It has been submitted that after lodging of the first information report the applicant had approached this Court by filing writ petition for quashing the FIR, on which this Court by means of order dated 28.05.2024, had granted protection to the applicant from arrest. In support of his contention learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rajnish Singh @ Soni Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2025 (3) SCR 303, wherein in para 25, the Apex Court has held as under :- "25. It is hard to believe that the complainant, being a highly qualified and well-placed major woman, kept on bending to the demands of the appellant for a period of nearly 16 years without raising any protest to any quarter that the appellant was exploiting her sexually under the pretext of false promise of marriage. The prolonged period of 16 years during which the sexual relations continued unabatedly between the parties, is sufficient to conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship. The complainant and the appellant were posted at different placed pursuing their respective jobs. On a few occasions, the appellant would visit the complainant at her place whereas on 5 NA528 No. 34972 of 2025 other occasions, the complainant was called by the appellant to his house where these acts of fornication continued unabatedly till the year 2020/2021. It is almost impossible to swallow the version of the complainant that for the entire period of 16 years, she unreservedly allowed the appellant to subject her to repeated acts of sexual intercourse under the impression that the accused would on someday act upon his promise of marriage."

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1639.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have opposed the application. It has been submitted that perusal of first information report lodged by the prosecutrix she has unequivocally demonstrated that the applicant first of all had created a false online profile on a matrimonial site, giving his status as "never married". Accordingly, it is on the basis of the false information given by the applicant on the online matrimonial site, that the parties met with each other, which act of the applicant clearly shows his intention to lure any unsuspecting woman to enter into relationship with him on the basis of facts mentioned therein. It has been stated that it is on the basis of false profile created by the applicant that the prosecutrix had accepted the proposal of marriage. Actual marriage was postponed at the request of the applicant on the ground of his poor financial health and during this period he 6 NA528 No. 34972 of 2025 continued to demand money from the prosecutrix and she has paid nearly Rs.5,00,000/- to him on being satisfied that applicant would marry her. They entered into physical relationship due to which prosecutrix became pregnant and according to the allegations levelled in the FIR, it is the applicant who was responsible for getting the fetus aborted and he had sent medicines to the prosecutrix in this regard.

10. Considering the rival submissions this Court finds that it is only considering the promise to marry that the prosecutrix when the applicant met with an accident, she brought him to her house and looked after him and only at this stage she has discovered that the applicant is previously married and had a child and when she confronted the applicant with this fact, he did not denied his previous marriage and threatened her and declined to marry her and it is only thereafter, that first information report was lodged. The discovery of the fact regarding previous marriage of applicant was made by prosecutrix some time in February, 2024 and FIR was lodged in April, 2024. Though there may be some delay in lodging the FIR, but in the peculiar circumstances, delay itself would not enable the applicant to get the proceedings quashed at the preliminary stage itself. Though the applicant in his application has stated that applicant's profile was created on the request of the prosecutrix herself. 7 NA528 No. 34972 of 2025

11. Apart from the above, this Court finds that rest of the arguments raised by the applicant are only defense of the applicant for which the applicant would have sufficient opportunity during the trial.

12. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court do not find that the case of the applicant is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court cited by him in support of his submissions. This Court finds that in the present case, the applicant himself was responsible for creating false profile and on the basis of which the prosecutrix had agreed to marry him,, but the marriage was postponed on the request of the applicant himself stating his poor financial health.

13. From the allegations itself it is clear that prima facie physical relations were maintained by the applicant only on the basis of promise of marriage. Accordingly, this Court do not find any ground for interference in the present proceedings. The present application being devoid of merits is dismissed. September 19, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.)

applicant has also challenged charge sheet No. 47/2024, dated 11.06.2024 summoning order dated

15.01.2025, passed in the aforesaid case by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the 2 NA528 No. 34972 of 2025 applicant that first information report was lodged by the prosecutrix on 12.04.2024, alleging that she belongs to Scheduled Caste category and had made her profile on- line portal known as Jeevan Sathi.Com and is the applicant who had responded to her profile on the Jeevan Sathi.com portal where entire biodata of the applicant was also mentioned. In the said biodata of the applicant it was clearly stated that he has never been married and he worked in reputed company and earning Rs.10-15 lacks per annum. Considering the aforesaid information available on the Portal, the applicant and prosecutrix started communicating with each other and accordingly, they decided to get married, but actual marriage was postoponed at the request of applicant who has stated that he is not in good financial health. Both the parties continued to meet each other during the said period and the applicant also requested certain money from the prosecutrix during the said period indicating his poor financial condition, who continued to pay money and nearly around Rs.5,00,000/- were paid by her to the applicant. Whenever, question of marriage was raised by the prosecutrix, the applicant had replied that he will marry only when his financial condition improves.

4. Apart from above, the applicant got the prosecutrix sign a stamp paper and informed her that they were married and it in these circumstances, the applicant maintained physical relationship with the prosecutrix and she also became pregnant and informed this fact to the 3 NA528 No. 34972 of 2025 applicant. It is stated that the applicant sent some medicines online to the prosecutrix and asked her to take those medicines and the moment she took the medicines her pregnancy got aborted and at this stage it is alleged that the applicant informed her that those medicines were for abortion. Even after the said incident, the applicant is said to promise the prosecutrix to marry her and they were in regular touch with each other and even after the applicant met with an accident, the prosecutrix took care of him and they started living at Prayagraj and during this period also they maintained physical relationship.

5. It is during the period applicant and prosecutrix were living at Prayaraj, the prosecutrix had occasion to look into the mobile phone of the applicant and she discovered photographs of a lady and after which she came to know that the applicant is previously married and when she asked the applicant about the same, he accepted the fact of he being previously married and having a child and at this stage applicant refused to marry prosecutrix and accordingly, first information report was lodged.

6. During investigation, statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which has been annexed alongwith present application, this Court finds that she has supported the prosecution case where she has stated that the applicant had maintained sexual relations with her on false promise of marriage. 4 NA528 No. 34972 of 2025

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that long length of relationship between the parties clearly demonstrates that they had physical relationship on the basis of consent and it cannot be said that such relationship was based on false promise of marriage. It has been submitted that after lodging of the first information report the applicant had approached this Court by filing writ petition for quashing the FIR, on which this Court by means of order dated 28.05.2024, had granted protection to the applicant from arrest. In support of his contention learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rajnish Singh @ Soni Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2025 (3) SCR 303, wherein in para 25, the Apex Court has held as under :- "25. It is hard to believe that the complainant, being a highly qualified and well-placed major woman, kept on bending to the demands of the appellant for a period of nearly 16 years without raising any protest to any quarter that the appellant was exploiting her sexually under the pretext of false promise of marriage. The prolonged period of 16 years during which the sexual relations continued unabatedly between the parties, is sufficient to conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship. The complainant and the appellant were posted at different placed pursuing their respective jobs. On a few occasions, the appellant would visit the complainant at her place whereas on 5 NA528 No. 34972 of 2025 other occasions, the complainant was called by the appellant to his house where these acts of fornication continued unabatedly till the year 2020/2021. It is almost impossible to swallow the version of the complainant that for the entire period of 16 years, she unreservedly allowed the appellant to subject her to repeated acts of sexual intercourse under the impression that the accused would on someday act upon his promise of marriage."

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1639.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have opposed the application. It has been submitted that perusal of first information report lodged by the prosecutrix she has unequivocally demonstrated that the applicant first of all had created a false online profile on a matrimonial site, giving his status as "never married". Accordingly, it is on the basis of the false information given by the applicant on the online matrimonial site, that the parties met with each other, which act of the applicant clearly shows his intention to lure any unsuspecting woman to enter into relationship with him on the basis of facts mentioned therein. It has been stated that it is on the basis of false profile created by the applicant that the prosecutrix had accepted the proposal of marriage. Actual marriage was postponed at the request of the applicant on the ground of his poor financial health and during this period he 6 NA528 No. 34972 of 2025 continued to demand money from the prosecutrix and she has paid nearly Rs.5,00,000/- to him on being satisfied that applicant would marry her. They entered into physical relationship due to which prosecutrix became pregnant and according to the allegations levelled in the FIR, it is the applicant who was responsible for getting the fetus aborted and he had sent medicines to the prosecutrix in this regard.

10. Considering the rival submissions this Court finds that it is only considering the promise to marry that the prosecutrix when the applicant met with an accident, she brought him to her house and looked after him and only at this stage she has discovered that the applicant is previously married and had a child and when she confronted the applicant with this fact, he did not denied his previous marriage and threatened her and declined to marry her and it is only thereafter, that first information report was lodged. The discovery of the fact regarding previous marriage of applicant was made by prosecutrix some time in February, 2024 and FIR was lodged in April, 2024. Though there may be some delay in lodging the FIR, but in the peculiar circumstances, delay itself would not enable the applicant to get the proceedings quashed at the preliminary stage itself. Though the applicant in his application has stated that applicant's profile was created on the request of the prosecutrix herself. 7 NA528 No. 34972 of 2025

11. Apart from the above, this Court finds that rest of the arguments raised by the applicant are only defense of the applicant for which the applicant would have sufficient opportunity during the trial.

12. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court do not find that the case of the applicant is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court cited by him in support of his submissions. This Court finds that in the present case, the applicant himself was responsible for creating false profile and on the basis of which the prosecutrix had agreed to marry him,, but the marriage was postponed on the request of the applicant himself stating his poor financial health.

13. From the allegations itself it is clear that prima facie physical relations were maintained by the applicant only on the basis of promise of marriage. Accordingly, this Court do not find any ground for interference in the present proceedings. The present application being devoid of merits is dismissed. September 19, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.)