The main legal point established is that consensual sexual relations cannot be deemed rape solely on the basis of a breach of promise to marry, and that material is required to prove inducement in cases of consent obtained by fraud.

1. Petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A Cr.P.C. to seek quashing of FIR No.50/2017 registered with the Police Station, Ghagwal for commission of offences under Sections 376/506 RPC on the complaint of respondent No.2 who got the FIR registered in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C on the directions of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samba by alleging that she was subjected to sexual assault on the marriage promise which the petitioner deny though there was marriage proposal, but the petitioner after coming to know about the antecedent of the respondent No.2 refused the marriage proposal and there was no relation between the petitioner and respondent No. 2.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he who belongs to respectable family and is serving in the Indian Army recruited in the year 2012 in 5 JAKLI, after recruitment the petitioner underwent initial training for a period of two years without any break. Thus, in the year 2016, there was marriage proposal from the parents of the respondent No.2 which the parents of the petitioner agreed and marriage was to be solemnized in the month of June, 2017. During this period, the petitioner came to know from the respondent No. 2 herself who while making telephonic conversation admitted to have a love affair with somebody else and narrated her physical relation with that person. On knowing this fact, the petitioner refused the marriage proposal upon which the respondent No.2 and her parents started insisting for marriage and threatened the petitioner to implicate him for the commission of offence. It is stated that petitioner is having the telephonic recording in order to substantiate this plea. Thus, there was no physical relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2 as alleged in the complaint.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samba. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the said complaint directed SHO Police Station, Ghagwal to register an FIR for commission of offence under Sections 376/506 RPC. The petitioner challenges the said FIR No.50/2017 registered with the Police Station, Ghagwal for commission of offences under Sections 376/506 RPC on the following grounds:-

(i) That the FIR is misuse of process of law. The petitioner alleged in the complaint that she was subjected to sexual assault and was in love affair with the petitioner since 2010 having friendly relation and love affair constantly for seven years and have the physical relationship and subsequently agreed tosolemnize the marriage. All the ceremonies were completed. However, subsequently the petitioner allegedly refused to marry with the respondent. It is submitted that respondent No.2 who is elder than the petitioner and is a mature lady developed the relationship with the petitioner and also alleged in the complaint that she used to stay with the petitioner and visited at various places of Himachal Pradesh, Katra and Patnitop. In such circumstances, no offence under Section 376 RPC is made out. Even if it is assumed without admitting this fact that there was friendly relationship between petitioner and respondent No.2 even then from the allegations leveled in the complaint be taken as it, no offence under Section 376 RPC is made out. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Tilak Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2016 (4) SCC 140 has held that the evidence as a whole including the FIR and testimony of the prosecutrix clearly indicates that the story of prosecutrix regarding sexual intercourse on false pretext of marrying her concocted and not believable. It is the admitted case that she was in relationship with the petitioner for the last seven years and the petitioner used to stay overnight at her residence, under these circumstances the offence cannot be said to have been made out because of the reason that from the bare perusal of the complaint it transpires