The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove that the promise of marriage was false, given in bad faith, and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given in cases involving sexual offenses under the pretext of marriage.

JUDGMENT :

1. 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 solemnize the marriage. On t