The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 376 and 506 RPC.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh quashed an FIR that alleged sexual harassment based on a false promise of marriage, noting that the complainant had been in a relationship with the accused for six to seven years.
The case was being heard in a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 376 and 506 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
The single bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed, “For all what has been said, discussed and analyzed hereinabove, no offence is made out against the petitioner, as it is evident that the respondent No.2 remained in relationship with the petitioner for six-seven long years and lodged FIR only, when the petitioner did not accede to the demand of the respondent No.3 to send marriage proposal to her parents. The present petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR impugned bearing No. 38/2018 dated 16.08.2018 for commission of offences under sections 376 and 506 RPC registered with Police Station, Panchari, District Udhampur is quashed.”
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner argued that the FIR filed at the behest of Respondent No. 2 was false, frivolous, and devoid of specific details such as the date, time, and location of the alleged incident. Even if the allegations were accepted at face value, the FIR failed to disclose any offence attributable to the Petitioner.
It was further submitted that, contrary to the FIR’s claim of a seven-year relationship, the Petitioner had no acquaintance with Respondent No. 2. Official records, including a service certificate, confirmed that during his tenure as a constable, the Petitioner neither took leave nor remained absent from duty.
Additionally, it was brought to light that in 2016, Respondent No. 2’s parents had approached the Petitioner’s father with a marriage proposal, which was declined. Despite this, Respondent No. 2 continued to insist on marrying the Petitioner and allegedly threatened to disrupt any future matrimonial alliance involving him. The FIR was filed only after the Petitioner became engaged and his wedding preparations began.
Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the FIR was maliciously motivated to obstruct his forthcoming marriage. It was also argued that even if the statements made in the complaint and FIR were assumed to be true, they did not constitute any criminal offence—particularly in light of Respondent No. 2’s own assertion of being in a relationship with the Petitioner for seven years.
Reasoning By Court
The Court upheld the arguments put forth by the Petitioner’s counsel and quashed the FIR, drawing upon precedents set by the Supreme Court in Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi (2024), Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of W.B. (2025), Jothiragawan v. State (2025), and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Consequently, the petition was allowed.
