JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the FIR No. 68 of 2017, dated 01.06.2017 registered with the Police Station, Nawabad for commission of offence under section 376 RPC.

2. It is stated that the complainant made a written complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu on 01.06.2017 stating therein that the petitioner deceived the complainant as after having enjoyed sex with her, the petitioner refused to solemnize marriage with her. In the complaint, it was stated that the parents of the petitioner and the complainant settled an arranged marriage between the petitioner and the complainant and the final date was yet to be fixed for solemnization of the marriage. Whenever the petitioner came to his village Kaintha, as the petitioner had been serving in Indian Army, the complainant and the petitioner used to meet each other and on 28th of May 2017, the complainant with her own free will and consent accompanied the petitioner to Jammu and it was further stated that the petitioner used the complainant for the sexual purpose and thereafter refused to marry. The petitioner has impugned the FIR on the following grounds:

(a) That as per the allegations, no offence under section 376 RPC is made out and in the whole complaint, it is nowhere mentioned that the petitioner raped the complainant. Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same do not prima facie constitute the offence of rape.

(b) That it is admitted case of the complainant that the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was settled by the parents of the petitioner and the complainant and after settling the marriage, the petitioner indulged in sexual relationship with the complainant and thereafter refused to marry. As per law laid down by Apex court in Deepak Gulati versus State of Haryana that where the accused committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on the promise to marry and after eloping with the complainant, the accused cannot be said to have committed an offence of rape, if he doesn't solemnize the marriage subsequently.

(c) The FIR has been registered by the complainant with mala fide intention and with ulterior motive for wrecking the vengeance upon the petitioner as there is a dispute of land between the father of the petitioner and his real brother, Sukhdev Singh. The complainant is the daughter of maternal uncle of the wife of Sukhdev Singh. The present complaint has been filed at the instance of said lady and her husband Sukhdev Singh, who are not interested in giving the ancestral property of the father of the petitioner to him.

3. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have filed their response, in which it is stated that the complainant submitted an application on 01.06.2017 and pursuant to the said application, FIR No. 68/2017 under section 376 RPC was registered and during the course of the investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. The petitioner was arrest ed and was subsequently granted bail on 21.06.2017. It is further stated that as per the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. and other witnesses, offence under section 376 RPC stands proved against the petitioner.

4. During the pendency of this petition, an application was also filed by the petitioner for arraying the prosecutrix as well as her father as party to the present petition. In the said application, it was also stated by the petitioner that the marriage between the petitioner and the prosecutrix stands solemnized on 01.07.2017 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Janipur Jammu and in support of the said assertion, the petitioner has placed on record the marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir Janipur Colony Jammu. Vide order dated 13.08.2021, the prosecutrix was arrayed as party-respondent No. 3 to the present petition. The respondent No. 3 i.e. the prosecutrix has filed a response in which she has st