IMPORTANT POINT
Consent for sexual intercourse cannot be deemed obtained under a false promise of marriage if the promise is later fulfilled, and misunderstandings leading to allegations do not constitute a valid basis for criminal charges.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. Petitioners have challenged FIR No. 10/2020 for offences under Section 376, 109 IPC of Police Station, Shopian. It is averred in the petition that petitioner No. 1 happens to be the wife of petitioner No. 2. It is further averred that engagement of petitioner No. 1 with petitioner No. 2 was solemnized some two years back and during this period, due to some misunderstanding, the petitioner No. 1 felt that the petitioner No. 2 would not keep his promise of marrying her and due to this misunderstanding, the petitioner No. 1 lodged the impugned FIR against petitioner No. 2. It is further submitted that the misunderstanding of petitioner No. 1 turned out to be false when petitioner No. 2 married with petitioner No. [1][2] and, accordingly, a Nikah ceremony was performed on 15.02.2020, in which family members of the couple also participated. A copy of the Nikah Nama has been placed on record.

2. On the basis of aforesaid averments, the petitioners have sought quashment of the impugned FIR:

3. The status report stands filed on behalf of the official respondents, in which it has been submitted that on 30.01.2020, a written application was made by petitioner No. 1 before Police Station, Shopian, alleging that petitioner No. 2 had cheated her on the promise of marriage and had established physical relationship with her several times. These allegations were repeated by petitioner No. 1 in her statement under Section 164-A Cr. P. C. The age of the petitioner No. 1 was found to be more than 18 years and it was found from the statements of the witnesses that there was a marriage proposal between the petitioners but later on petitioner No. 2 had refused to enter into wedlock with petitioner No. 1. The status report further goes on to submit that after lodging of the FIR, petitioner No. 2 has entered into wedlock with petitioner No. 1 on 15.02.2020.

4. During the pendency of the petition, the statement of petitioner No. 1 was recorded before the Registrar Judicial of this Court, in which she has reiterated and reaffirmed that she has entered into a wedlock with petitioner No. 2. She has further stated that initially there was some misunderstanding between the two which led to the filing of the FIR.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6. Broadly speaking, the allegation in the impugned FIR levelled by petitioner No. 1 against the petitioner No. 2 is that he, on the basis of a false promise of marriage, obtained the consent of petitioner No. 1 for having sexual intercourse. Thus, as per the impugned FIR, the consent of petitioner No. 1 to sexual intercourse was obtained by petitioner No. 2 under a mistake of fact. Failure to keep a promise of marriage is the gist of offence of aforesaid nature.

7. In the instant case, as the facts have unfolded, the petitioners have entered into a wedlock after lodging of the FIR, which clearly indicates that the promise of marriage extended by petitioner No. 2 to petitioner No. 1 was not a false promise. Petitioner No. 1 has herself admitted in her statement recorded before the Registrar Judicial that lodging of the FIR by her against the petitioner No. 2 was a result of misunderstanding on her part. So, the very basis of the allegation levelled against petitioner No. 2 in the FIR gets knocked down by the fact that he has kept his promise of marrying petitioner No. 1. Thus, it cannot be stated that the consent of petitioner No. 1 to have sexual intercourse with petitioner No. 2 was on the basis of a false promise of marriage.

8. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that petitioner No. 1 has lodged the impugned FIR against petitioner No. 2 on the basis of mere apprehension that promise of marriage extended to her by petitioner No. 2 is false. During investigation of the case, her said apprehension has been proved to be misplaced. Thus, in the instant case the allegations made in the impugned FIR and the evidence collected in support of t