The evidence must establish the commission of the offence, and the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The informant made a complaint before the police stating that she was married and was residing with her husband. She was introduced to the present petitioner. The petitioner called the informant and asked her to meet him. The informant met the accused/petitioner. The petitioner proposed to marry her. The informant said that she was already married and could not marry. The petitioner continued to talk to the informant. He took her to a hotel where he entered into sexual relations with the informant on the assurance of the marriage. He asked her to divorce her husband and marry him. The informant and her husband filed a divorce petition on 30.05.2019 and the same was decided on 04.12.2019. The informant contacted the petitioner; however, he changed his mobile phone. The informant traced the petitioner. He told her that he wanted to use her and never intended to marry her. He went to the house of the petitioner where the petitioner’s father told her to take some money and forget the petitioner. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. The police found that the petitioner never intended to marry the informant as she belonged to a different caste.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court to quash the F.I.R. It has been asserted that the informant filed the complaint against the petitioner to extract money from him. She demanded Rs.10,00,000/-. The informant had also made a complaint to SSP Pathankot on 14.10.2019 by making the same allegation. The police conducted the investigation and found that she had entered into sexual relations with the petitioner on her own and no case was made out. She filed a complaint in Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P.. The allegation regarding taking the informant to Hotel Exotica was made for the first time. The informant and her husband have been in litigation since 2018. Her husband had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 19.05.2018. The marriage between them was dissolved in the year 2019. The informant had wrongly mentioned her age as 28 years whereas she is aged 33 years. She is a mother of two children aged about 10 years and 8 years. She knew the consequences of her acts and that the marriage during the subsistence of an existing marriage was not permissible. The informant and the petitioner had a consensual relationship; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R. be quashed.

3. The State filed a reply asserting that the police properly conducted the investigation. Offences punishable under Sections 201, 376, 506 of IPC, Section 66(e) of the Information and Technology Act and Section 3(2) va of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were added after the investigation. The charge sheet was filed before the Court. The informant specifically stated that the petitioner was raped in a hotel located within the jurisdiction of Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and affirming those of the petition was filed.

5. No reply was filed on behalf of the informant although the informant is represented by the counsel.

6. I have heard Mr Hitesh Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner through Video conferencing, Mr Prashant Sen learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent no.1/State and Mr Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

7. Mr. Hitesh Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the contents of the F.I.R., the informant was married who could not have been deceived by the promise to marry her because she knew that it was not permissible for her to marry the petitioner during the subsistence of an existing marriage. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and F.I.R. be quashed.

8. Mr. Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent no.1/State submitted that the in