JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the F.I.R. No. 27 of 2021 dated 03.12.2021, registered at Women Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and setting aside the order dated 04.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, in Session Trial No. 14/2022, titled State Vs. Shashank Thakur.

2. It has been asserted that an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner by the informant stating that she was in a relationship with the petitioner for 5 years before her marriage. The petitioner impregnated her and administered some medicine to abort her fetus. He threatened to commit suicide by jumping into the river in case the informant refused to take the medicine. Subsequently, the petitioner started ignoring the informant and stopped talking to her. The informant asked the petitioner to marry her but he refused. The matter was also reported to the One Stop Centre and Women Police Station on 20.11.2021. The petitioner solemnized marriage with the informant in Trilogi Temple Pirdi. The informant withdrew the complaints on the asking of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner deleted the data from the mobile phone of the informant. When the informant went to the home of the petitioner, the petitioner’s mother abused the informant and said that her family had nothing to do with her. The petitioner defrauded her by pretending to solemnise the marriage. The contents of the F.I.R. are false because the petitioner never promised to marry the informant. The informant asked the petitioner to marry her and she is claiming herself to be the wife of the petitioner. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu wrongly ordered the framing of the charge of rape against the petitioner. The continuance of the proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of the law, therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R. and consequent proceedings arising out of the same be quashed.

3. The State filed a reply asserting that the informant reported the matter to the police that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her on the pretext of the marriage, however, he did not solemnise the marriage. The police conducted the investigation and prepared the challan against the petitioner. The matter is listed for consideration of charge. The petitioner had committed a heinous crime, therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. No reply was filed by respondent no.2, although the notice was issued to her.

5. I have heard Mr Rajiv Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jitender Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent no.1 and Mr. Ravinder Thakur, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

6. Mr. Rajiv Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner are false and the contents of the F.I.R. do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The continuation of the criminal proceedings is an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R. and consequent proceedings be quashed.

7. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1/State submitted that the petitioner sexually assaulted the petitioner on the pretext of marriage and when the informant went to the house of the petitioner, his family members said that there was no proof of marriage and they have no concerned with her, therefore, he prayed that present petition be dismissed.

8. Mr. Ravinder Thakur, learned counsel for respondent no.2 supported the submissions advanced by the learned Additional General and he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.

10. The principles of exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were laid down by the Ho