The consent of a minor in a sexual offense case is irrelevant, and evidence produced by the accused in his defense cannot be considered at the initial stage of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 0095 of 2020 dated 03.07.2020 registered with Police Station, Ramban for commission of offence under section 376 IPC.

2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is serving as a Sepoy in 17 RR (Rashtriya Rifles) and is posted in District Kishtwar. The parents of the complainant forced the parents of the petitioner to agree for marriage with the complainant. On 13.12.2019, the complainant along with her parents visited the residence of the petitioner, where the parents of the petitioners without his consent told that the petitioner is going to be engaged with the complainant and later on their marriage will be solemnized. The petitioner neither gave any consent nor was prepared for such marriage. It is further stated that in order to pressurize the petitioner to marry the complainant, baseless complaint dated 26.06.2020 was lodged with the Superintendent of Police, Ramban alleging therein that on 17.12.2019 and 08.01.2020, the complainant was subjected to rape by the petitioner on the false promise of marriage without indicating the details pertaining to time, place where she was subjected to alleged rape by the petitioner. Pursuant to the said complaint, the FIR impugned was registered. It is further stated that the allegation leveled in the FIR do not make out any offence under section 376 IPC, further the Hon'ble Apex Court has made a distinction between a promise which is unfulfilled and a promise which is false from the very beginning. It is further submitted that the petitioner neither has any relationship with the complainant nor had any sexual relationship with her and further he never assured the complainant of any marriage, as he himself was not in favour of marrying the complainant.

3. The respondent No. 1 has filed the response, in which it has been stated that on 03.07.2020 an application was received by the Police Station, Ramban duly endorsed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ramban wherein it was stated that on 13.12.2019, the engagement of the complainant was performed with the petitioner and subsequently on 17.12.2019 and 08.01.2020, the petitioner entered into the house of the complainant with criminal intention and committed rape upon the complainant without her consent and accordingly, FIR was registered. During the course of the investigation, the statement of the complainant was recorded. In her statement, she has stated that she was raped by the petitioner on 17.12.2019 and 08.01.2020 and the petitioner had further threatened her that he had made her video on 17.12.2019 and he will make it viral. It is further stated in the response that the age of victim/complainant was 17 years 9 months and 7 days on 17.12.2019 i.e. the date of alleged first occurrence. Further, as she was given some substance in juice, as a result of which she lost her consciousness, so the offence under section 328 IPC and section 4 POSCO Act were also added during investigation.

4. Thereafter, pursuant to application made by the prosecutrix for recording her statement afresh, her statement was recorded again, in which she has stated that due to some misunderstanding, she had lodged the FIR against the petitioner. The said statement has been placed on record by the respondent No. 1.

5. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that at the most the whole case of the prosecutrix is indulging into sexual relationship on the basis of promise to marry and further the prosecutrix/complainant has completely exonerated the petitioner, so the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

6. Mr. Bari Abdullah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 too submitted that the FIR is required to be quashed taking into consideration the subsequent statement made by the respondent No. 2.

7. Per contra, Mr. Jamrodh Singh, learned GA has vehemently argued that even