FIR quashed where consensual physical relations occurred while complainant concealed subsisting marriage, negating false promise to marry and vitiated consent under rape provisions; no SC/ST atrocity absent caste nexus.

JUDGMENT :

VIRENDER SINGH, J.

1. Petitioner Vikram Singh has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of FIR No.143, dated 12.09.2019, (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question) registered, under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC’) and Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SCST Act’), with Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto.

2. According to the petitioner, he is permanent resident of the address, as mentioned in the petition and presently, residing in Australia.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in hope of better future, he has migrated to Australia, where, he was running a taxi, as a part time job, so that he could raise funds for his education in Australia.

4. It is his further case that respondent No.3, met him at Australia in a club in the month of November-December 2018, and after small introduction, both of them come closure to each other.

5. As per the further case of the petitioner, respondent No.3 has told him that she is in Australia since 2009 and is green card holder and residing with her boyfriend, who is Australian citizen. Thereafter, both of them remained in touch with each other, and after few days, respondent No.3 came to the petitioner to reside with him, on the pretext, that relations of respondent No.3 with her boyfriend have now become strained and she wants to reside with, him only for few days, till she will make her own arrangement. Due to the above intimacy, the relation had developed between the petitioner and respondent No.3.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the month of January 2019, the petitioner came to India for vacation, as, he was on study visa and living in Australia. Respondent No.3 also came to India in month of February, 2019, and she had called the petitioner by informing that she is in India. Both of them visited different places in India and ultimately, went back to Australia, in the month of March, 2019. The petitioner went back to Australia on 24.03.2019. After reaching Australia, respondent No.3 planned a trip to Bali (Indonesia) and she had made a request to the petitioner to be with her to Bali, upon which, the petitioner informed her that he is not in a position to spend money on such type of trips. Thereafter, respondent No.3 had assured that she will bear all the expenses incurred on this trip. Thereafter, both of them went to Bali on 03.04.2019 and returned back to Australia on 11.04.2019.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 19.05.2019, he received a message from respondent No.3 intimating that she is pregnant and is not interested to have the child. Thereafter, the petitioner advised her that she can abort the child, if she is not comfortable. Thereafter, respondent No.3 had informed the petitioner that s per the advice of the doctor, abortion is not possible. Thereafter, she su