A mere breach of promise to marry does not constitute an offence under IPC unless it is shown that the promise was made in bad faith with no intention to adhere to it.

JUDGMENT

RAJNESH OSWAL, J.

1. This petition has been filed for quashing the FIR No. 38/2018 dated 16.08.2018 registered with Police Station, Panchari, District Udhampur under sections 376 and 506 RPC by respondent No. 1 at the instance of respondent No. 2.

2. It is stated in the petition that false and frivolous FIR without mentioning the date, time and place of occurrence has been registered against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No. 2 and a bare perusal of the same would reveal that no offence is made out against the petitioner, even if, the allegations at their face value, are assumed to be correct. It is also urged by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 has alleged the occurrence to have taken place in the month of June 2011 and the contents of the complaint itself establish that respondent No. 2 has grievance in respect of the broken promise of marriage, though the petitioner denies the same. In the FIR, though it is stated that respondent No. 2 had maintained the relationship with the petitioner for seven years, but the petitioner did not even know respondent No. 2.

3. The petitioner has further tried to demonstrate the falsity of the FIR impugned by submitting that the petitioner was selected as Constable in Sashastra Seema Bal in May 2011 and the petitioner joined the service on 09.05.2011 at 45th Battalion, Bhopal MP and underwent the basic recruitment training course from 20.06.2011 to 14.04.2012 in the Training Center Gorakhpur, UP and during that period, he had not availed any kind of leave or remained absent from the duties and the original service certificate issued in this regard has been placed on record. Rather in the year 2016, the parents of respondent No. 2 had approached the father of the petitioner for solemnizing the marriage which the father of the petitioner had refused but the respondent No. 2 was adamant to solemnize marriage with the petitioner and had openly declared that she would cross any limit and not allow the solemnization of the marriage of the petitioner with someone else. The FIR has been lodged only because the marriage of the petitioner has been fixed after his engagement on 12.09.2018.

4. It is also stated by the petitioner that he obtained leave from the Unit with effect from 29..08.2018 only, therefore, there was no occasion for him to be posted in J&K as alleged in the complaint. He is posted at Lurnla District Tawang, Arunchal Pradesh on the Indo Bhutan Border where even mobile facility is not available. The petitioner has also placed on record his wedding invitation card, leave order and certificate to prove that the petitioner had not obtained any kind of leave from 09.05.2011 to 14.04.2012 and had not even remained absent from the duties during that period.

5. The respondent No. 1 has filed the response, narrating the factual aspects of the case and it is stated that the present petition is not maintainable as disputed questions of fact have been raised.

6. The respondent No. 2 has also filed the response, thereby submitting that because of in-action of the Police Authorities, she filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur and after hearing her counsel, the complaint was forwarded to SHO Police Station Pancheri to proceed in terms of section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Pursuant to which, FIR No. 38/2018 dated 16.08.2018 for commission of offences under sections 376 and 506 RPC has been registered. It is also contended by respondent No. 2 that the date, place and time of occurrence has been stated by the complainant before the SHO during investigation of the case and absence of every minute detail of the occurrence would not render the FIR illegal. Though the respondent No. 2 has denied the contentions raised by the petitioner, but she has stated that during the span of seven years, the petitioner had committed rape upon her by making false promise with her.

7. Mr. Mazher Ali Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the false and frivolous FIR ha