Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
Suresh Kumar and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
UT of J&K and Anr. – Respondents
CRMC No.721 of 2018, IA No.1 of 2018, CrlM No.806 of 2019, CrlM No.1377 of 2019 c/w
Bail App No.98 of 2019, CrlM No.214 of 2020, CrlM No.825 of 2019
CRM(M) No.148 of 2020, CrlM No.372 of 2020, CrlM No.495 of 2021
Bail App No.45 of 2020, CrlM No.373 of 2020
Decided on 2.9.2021

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner in CRMC No.721/2018 & Bail App No.98/2019:Mr. Jagpaal Singh, Advocate
For the Petitioner in CRM(M) No.148/2020 & Bail App No.45/2020:Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 in CRMC No.721/2018 & Bail App No.98/2019: Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, GA
For the Respondent No.1 in CRM(M) No.148/2020 & Bail App No.45/2020: Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG
For the Respondent No.2 in CRMC No.721/2018 & CRM(M) No.148/2020:Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
When there is allegation that sexual relationships were made on the basis of false promise of marriage, then it has to be established that promise of marriage was a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given.

Headnote:
Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 – Section 376/420 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 439 and 482 – Rape and cheating – When there is allegation that sexual relationships were made on the basis of false promise of marriage, then it has to be established that promise of marriage was a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given – Respondent No. 2 has been changing her stands time and again – In both F.I.Rs, there are common allegations with regard to commission of rape on pretext of marriage and no date and place of occurrence has been mentioned in either of F.I.Rs. – Complainant and appellant met regularly, travelled great distances to meet each other, resided in each other’s houses on multiple occasions, engaged in sexual intercourse regularly over a course of five years and on multiple occasions visited hospital jointly to check whether complainant was pregnant – Appellant is a Deputy Commandant in CRPF while complainant is an Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax – Allegations in FIR do not on their face indicate that promise by appellant was false, or that complainant engaged in sexual relations on the basis of this promise – There is no allegation in FIR that when appellant promised to marry complainant, it was done in bad faith or with intention to deceive her – Appellant’s failure in 2016 to fulfill his promise made in 2008 cannot be construed to mean promise itself was false – Impugned F.I.Rs quashed – As main F.I.Rs stand quashed, no further orders are required to be passed in bail applications. (Paras 19, 19.2, 20, 21 and 22)
Result: Petitions allowed.

JUDGMENT

Rajnesh Oswal, J.—In CRMC No. 721/2018 titled “Suresh Kumar Vs. State of J & K (now U.T)”, the petitioner has assailed the FIR bearing No. 226/2018 dated 24.08.2018, under section 376 RPC registered with Police Station, Samba and in CRM(M) No. 148/20 titled “Rakesh Kumar Vs. Union Territory of J&K”, the petitioner has assailed the FIR bearing No. 24/2020 dated 16.03.2020 under Section 376/420 IPC registered with Police Station, Janipur. As both the FIRs have been lodged by the same complainant, so both the petitions were clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.

CRMC No.721/2018, Bail App No. 98/2019

2. The petitioner is serving in Army and is at present posted at New Delhi. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 has registered the FIR impugned against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No. 2 with the intention to cause harassment to the petitioner and further blackmail the petitioner. It is further stated that the respondent No. 2 is a major lady of more than twenty-six (26) years of age and the petitioner No. 1 never promised the respondent No. 2 that he would marry her and further he has not committed any offence. The present FIR has been lodged by the respondent No. 2 in order to build pressure upon the petitioner so that the petitioner solemnizes the marriage with the respondent No. 2. It is further stated that the respondent No. 2 is in relation with one Dr. Ashish Batra and after the registration of FIR, the petitioner came to know about Dr. Ashish Batra. The petitioner contacted the said Dr. Ashish Batra, who handed over the WhatsApp chat between him as well as the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner and from the perusal of the WhatsApp chat, one can easily make an assessment about the character of respondent No. 2. Since the respondent No. 2 is in relationship with the said Dr. Ashish Batra, therefore, there is no question of marrying the petitioner with respondent No. 2. In the WhatsApp chat, respondent No. 2 is talking of marrying Dr. Ashish Batra and she only wants to spoil the life of the petitioner and his family. In WhatsApp chat, the respondent No. 2 has admitted that she was not interested to marry the petitioner and was instead interested in marrying Dr. Ashish Batra. The petitioner has prayed for quashing F.I.R primarily on the ground that the allegations levelled in the FIR are frivolous and no such incident of sexual intercourse has ever occurred. Since the marriage proposal could not mature, the respondent No. 2 in order to build the pressure upon the petitioner and to blackmail him has got the said FIR registered against him. It is further stated that the general allegations have been levelled against the petitioner that he has committed sexual intercourse with the respondent No. 2 with the promise that the petitioner will marry her. It is further stated that in FIR impugned, there is no mention of date, time or place of the alleged occurrence. The petitioner has also filed affidavit of Dr Ashish Batra and also the supplementary affidavit regarding the lodging of another FIR by the respondent No. 2 against Rakesh Kumar, who is the petitioner in the other petition that is clubbed with the instant petition.

3. Response stands filed by both the respondents. Mr. Sawhney, learned AAG submits that the response filed in Bail Application be considered as response to the present petition also.

4. It is stated by respondent No. 1 that the complainant used WhatsApp on her phone and incidentally, both the petitioner and the prosecutrix started sending messages through WhatsApp. The complainant being resident of village believed that the petitioner will solemnize marriage with her. The petitioner assured the complainant that he will solemnize the marriage with her and thereafter, as and when the petitioner found time, he used to commit rape with the complainant against her consent and when the complainant asked the petitioner to solemnize the marriage, he refused to sole

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTWhen there is allegation that sexual relationships were made on the basis of false promise of marriage, then it has to be established that promise of marriage was a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
When there is allegation that sexual relationships were made on the basis of false promise of marriage, then it has to be established that promise of marriage was a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given.