JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner invokes inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 236/2014 dated 19.11.2014 registered at Police Station Rajbagh, Kathua under Section 376/420 RPC. 2. In this petition, it has been stated that petitioner has been falsely and wrongly implicated in case FIR No. 236/2014 registered by the respondent No.2 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 376/420 RPC, on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant alleging therein that she had a love affair with the petitioner on the promise of marrying her and had allegedly committed sexual intercourse with her. The aforesaid FIR has been lodged by projecting two important aspects: (a) The complainant was minor on the date of alleged commission of offence. (b) The alleged incident of sexual intercourse has taken place in a cinema hall when the film was running. 3. A reference to the aforesaid two aspects clearly shows that the stage two is not believable and it is highly inconceivable that any such activity could take place in a public place like cinema hall. Insofar as stage (a) is concerned, it is submitted that the complainant was major as on the date of alleged occurrence. A copy of date of birth of the complainant is annexed with the petition. It is further contended that the petitioner subsequent to registration of the aforesaid FIR, filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail and the same was rejected. It is further averred that although there is no evidence against the petitioner even then the respondent No.2 is harassing the petitioner. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved of the FIR No. 236/2014 registered by respondent No.2 and seeks its quashment on the following grounds: (a) That the allegations alleged against the petitioner in FIR are highly false and frivolous as no such incident of sexual intercourse has ever occurred. Since the marriage proposal could not mature, the complainant in order to build pressure upon the petitioner and to black mail him has got the aforesaid FIR registered against him. The allegations of sexual intercourse in a cinema hall where the film was being under way are highly vexatious as sexual intercourse in a public place is not conceivable under any stretch of imagination. The allegations of sexual intercourse in a cinema hall where the film was being under way are highly vexatious as sexual intercourse in a public place is not conceivable under any stretch of imagination. Thus the FIR merits to be quashed and the allegations in the FIR do not disclose the cognizable offence, therefore, the same is required to be quashed. (b) That the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which it has been inferred that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners. The FIR has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners. (c) That the FIR registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioner on the fact of it, is full of lies, containing completely false and frivolous allegations, the same is registered by succumbing to the pressure and influence exerted by the complainant party, otherwise, as is clear from the police report submitted by respondent No.2 before the trial Court. 5. Vide order dated 09.02.2015, this Court while entertaining the instant petition, issued notice to the respondents for filing objections and in the meantime, stayed the operation of the FIR No.236/2014 dated 19.11.2014 registered at Police Station, Rajbagh, Kathua. 6. On 19.08.2015, respondents have filed the objections wherein it is averred that as per the complaint of the complainant-respondent No.3, the complainant met Roshan Lal Sharma S/o Yudhishter Sharma R/o W.No. 12, Hiranagar at Mahakaal Temple, Jakhole and became friends. The accused also expressed his feelings and intention to marry the complainant. On 23.02.2014 she was taken to Apsra Theater, Jammu where they had sexual intercourse on his promise to marry her, but subsequently refused. The complainant suffered mental and emotional stress. The complainant only on the promise of marriage consented to relation with Roshan Lal. On the FIR being lodged, investigation in the case had been commenced. The FIR reveals the commission of a cognizable offence; however, it is only after a proper investigation in the matter that the true facts can be found. It is relevant to submit that seeing the present situation of women safety in the country and amendments of criminal laws in this regard; it is in the interest of justice that investigation be permitted to be completed. The present petition seeking quashment of FIR No. 236/2014 dated 19.11.2014 under Section 376/420 RPC merits outright rejection. 7. It is relevant to submit that seeing the present situation of women safety in the country and amendments of criminal laws in this regard; it is in the interest of justice that investigation be permitted to be completed. The present petition seeking quashment of FIR No. 236/2014 dated 19.11.2014 under Section 376/420 RPC merits outright rejection. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the file and documents annexed thereto. 8. Before dealing with the facts of the present case it would be appropriate to note the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2013) 3 SCC 330 Rajiv Thapar & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor wherein while laying down the guidelines for quashing of a FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, the Supreme Court delineated the steps to be taken to determine the veracity of prayer as under: "29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far- reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused." 9. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused." 9. Following the decision in Rajiv Thapar (supra) Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2013) 9 SCC 293 Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) dealing with a similar fact situation noting the facts of the complaint therein, material collected in investigation and placed by the accused therein quashed the FIR, held as under: "23. The details in respect of each aspect of the matter, arising out of the complaints made by Priya on 16-2-2007 and 21-2-2007 have been examined in extensive detail in the foregoing paragraphs. We shall now determine whether the steps noticed by this Court in the judgment extracted hereinabove can be stated to have been satisfied. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, the factual details referred to in the foregoing paragraphs are being summarised hereafter: 23.1. Firstly, the appellant-accused was in Sector 37, Noida in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 15-2-2007. He was at Noida before 7.55 p.m. He, thereafter, remained at different places within Noida and then at Shakarpur, Ghaziabad, Patparganj, Jorbagh, etc. From 9.15 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on 15-2-2007, he remained present at a marriage anniversary function celebrated at Rangoli Lawns at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. An affidavit to the aforesaid effect filed by the appellant-accused was found to be correct by the investigating officer on the basis of his mobile phone call details. The accused was therefore not at the place of occurrence, as alleged in the complaint dated 16-2-2007. 23.2. Secondly, verification of the mobile phone call details of the complainant/prosecutrix Priya revealed, that on 15-2-2007, no calls were made by the appellant-accused to the complainant/prosecutrix, and that, it was the complainant/prosecutrix who had made calls to him. 23.3. Thirdly, the complainant/prosecutrix, on and around the time referred to in the complaint dated 16-2-2007, was at different places of New Delhi i.e. in Defence Colony, Greater Kailash, Andrews Ganj and finally at Tughlaqabad Extension, as per the verification of the investigating officer on the basis of her mobile phone call details. 23.3. Thirdly, the complainant/prosecutrix, on and around the time referred to in the complaint dated 16-2-2007, was at different places of New Delhi i.e. in Defence Colony, Greater Kailash, Andrews Ganj and finally at Tughlaqabad Extension, as per the verification of the investigating officer on the basis of her mobile phone call details. The complainant was also not at the place of occurrence, as she herself alleged in the complaint dated 16-2-2007. 23.4. Fourthly, at the time when the complainant/prosecutrix alleged that the appellant- accused had misbehaved with her and had outraged her modesty on 15-2-2007 (as per her complaint dated 16-2-2007), she was actually in conversation with her friends (as per the verification made by the investigating officer on the basis of her mobile phone call details). 23.5. Fifthly, even though the complainant/prosecutrix had merely alleged in her complaint dated 16-2-2007 that the accused had outraged her modesty by touching her breasts, she had subsequently through a supplementary statement (made on 21-2-2007), levelled allegations against the accused for the offence of rape. 23.6. Sixthly, even though the complainant/prosecutrix was married to one Manoj Kumar Soni, s/o Seeta Ram Soni (as indicated in an affidavit appended to the Delhi Police format for information of tenants and duly verified by the investigating officer, wherein she had described herself as married), in the complaint made to the police (on 16-2-2007 and 21-2-2007), she had suggested that she was unmarried. 23.7. Seventhly, as per the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur (Rural) dated 23-9-2008, the complainant was married to Lalji Porwal on 14-6-2003. The aforesaid marriage subsisted till 23-9-2008. The allegations made by the complainant dated 16-2-2007 and 21-2-2007 pertain to occurrences of 23-12-2006, 25-12-2006, 1-1-2007 and 15-2-2007 i.e. positively during the subsistence of her marriage with Lalji Porwal. Thereafter, the complainant Priya married another man Manoj on 30-9-2008. This is evidenced by a "certificate of marriage" dated 30-9-2008. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the complainant could not have been induced into a physical relationship based on an assurance of marriage. 23.8. Eighthly, the physical relationship between the complainant and the accused was admittedly consensual. In her complaints Priya had however asserted, that her consent was based on a false assurance of marriage by the accused. 23.8. Eighthly, the physical relationship between the complainant and the accused was admittedly consensual. In her complaints Priya had however asserted, that her consent was based on a false assurance of marriage by the accused. Since the aspect of assurance stands falsified, the acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC. Especially because the complainant was a major on the date of occurrences, which fact emerges from the "certificate of marriage" dated 30-9- 2008, indicating her date of birth as 17-7-1986. 23.9. Ninthly, as per the medical report recorded by AIIMS dated 16-2-2007, the examination of the complainant did not evidence her having been poisoned. The instant allegation made by the complainant cannot now be established because even in the medical report dated 16-2-2007 it was observed that blood samples could not be sent for examination because of the intervening delay. For the same reason even the allegations levelled by the accused of having been administered some intoxicant in a cold drink (Pepsi) cannot now be established by cogent evidence. 23.10. Tenthly, the factual position indicated in the charge-sheet dated 28-6-2007, that despite best efforts made by the investigating officer, the police could not recover the container of the cold drink (Pepsi) or the glass from which the complainant had consumed the same. The allegations made by the complainant could not be verified even by the police from any direct or scientific evidence, is apparent from a perusal of the charge-sheet dated 28-6-2007. 23.11. Eleventhly, as per the medical report recorded by AIIMS dated 21-2-2007 the assertions made by the complainant that the accused had physical relations with her on 23-12-2006, 25-12-2006 and 1-1-2007, cannot likewise be verified as opined in the medical report, on account of delay between the dates of occurrences and her eventual medical examination on 21-2-2007. It was for this reason, that neither the vaginal smear was taken, nor her clothes were sent for forensic examination. 24. Most importantly, as against the aforesaid allegations, no pleadings whatsoever have been filed by the complainant. Even during the course of hearing, the material relied upon by the accused was not refuted. As a matter of fact, the complainant/prosecutrix had herself approached the High Court, with the prayer that the first information lodged by her, be quashed. 24. Most importantly, as against the aforesaid allegations, no pleadings whatsoever have been filed by the complainant. Even during the course of hearing, the material relied upon by the accused was not refuted. As a matter of fact, the complainant/prosecutrix had herself approached the High Court, with the prayer that the first information lodged by her, be quashed. It would therefore be legitimate to conclude, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the complainant/ prosecutrix. Even in the charge-sheet dated 28-6-2007, (extracted above) the investigating officer has acknowledged, that he could not find any proof to substantiate the charges. The charge-sheet had been filed only on the basis of the statement of the complainant/ prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC. 25. Based on the holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances summarized in the foregoing two paragraphs; we are satisfied, that all the steps delineated by this Court in Rajiv Thapar case [Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 158] stand satisfied. All the steps can only be answered in the affirmative. We therefore have no hesitation whatsoever in concluding, that judicial conscience of the High Court ought to have persuaded it, on the basis of the material available before it, while passing the impugned order, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant-accused, in exercise of the inherent powers vested with it under Section 482 CrPC. Accordingly, based on the conclusions drawn hereinabove, we are satisfied that the first information report registered under Sections 328, 354 and 376 of the Penal Code against the appellant-accused, and the consequential charge-sheet dated 28-6-2007, as also the framing of charges by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi on 1-12-2008, deserves to be quashed. The same are accordingly quashed." 10. In present case, complainant/prosecutrix filed a criminal complaint before JMIC, Hiranagar against petitioner herein for commission of offences 376/420 RPC on 19.11.2014.The contents of complaint reads as under:- 1. That the complainant on 1st of January, 2014 has gone to temple situated at Maha Nall for worship along with her friends. The accused met with complainant there and friendship relations created. 2. That the complainant on 1st of January, 2014 has gone to temple situated at Maha Nall for worship along with her friends. The accused met with complainant there and friendship relations created. 2. That thereafter the accused met with the complainant at several times and he has also committed sexual intercourse with the complainant with the promise that he will marry with the complainant. At the time of creation of love and affection, the complainant was minor and was ready to marry with the accused. 3. That now the complainant has attained the age of majority and asked the accused to marry with her on 17.11.2014, on this the accused flatly refused to marry with the complainant. He has cheated her with criminal intention. 4. That the accused has committed heinous offence with the complainant and also cheated/teased the complainant. 5. That the life of the complainant has become miserable and has spoiled the life of the complainant by the accused. 6. That the accused is serving in Armed Police as Constable and posted at Changran tehsil Kathua and the complainant has approached to the higher authorities to direct the accused to marry with the complainant but all in vain. 11. This complaint was sent to police of police station Raj Bagh Kathua for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and accordingly FIR no.236/2014 u/s 376/420 RPC was registered on 19.11.2014. During investigation statement of prosecutrix/complainant was recorded u/s 164-A Cr.P.C. 12. It further appears that I/C Police Post JAKOLE, the I/O of the case, filed a report before CJM, Kathua, wherein he has stated that during investigation victim has stated that on 23.2.2014, she was taken to Aprsa theater Jammu, where Rohan Lal/petitioner herein checked her virginity with a promise for marriage and created physical relation with him and she submits before him on promise of marriage. I/O has further stated that victim talked to the parents of accused, but they refused to marry her; that during investigation it has been found that horoscopes of both of them also got verified by parents but the matter did not get mature; that complainant was major as on 23.2.2014 as her date of birth was found to be 10.3.1995. 13. So bare perusal of contents of initial complaint, it is apparent that there is no specific mention of date, time and place of alleged rape. 13. So bare perusal of contents of initial complaint, it is apparent that there is no specific mention of date, time and place of alleged rape. A general allegation has been leveled that accused has committed sexual intercourse with the complainant with the promise that he will marry with the complainant; that at the time of creation of love and affection, the complainant was minor and was ready to marry with the accused. 14. During investigation statement of prosecutrix has been recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that accused herein on 23.2.2014 took her in Apsra theater at Gole Market Gandhinagar, Jammu for watching film; in theater there were broken chairs and 20-30 persons were there, who all were couple; there after film started; then she saw that some person on upper side and some towards down side were committing physical relationship; there was darkness and when she asked from accused as to why she has been brought there; accused asked that they will do same thing as others were doing; she denied. On this accused forced her and asked that they will also commit the sexual intercourse as other are also doing. Accused also asked her as they have also to solemnize marriage and after marriage they have to do the same thing. Then accused also asked her that he has to check her virginity, and then she started weeping and asked accused as to whether he will leave her after physical relationship. Accused asked that he is committed to marry her. Then she agreed for physical relationship. The accused accordingly succeeded in performing physical relationship. The other people in the theatre were also having physical relationship. 15. If one carefully examines the statement of prosecutrix/complainant with regard to commission of rape, one can come to definite conclusion that it is improbable, because in theater physical relationship/sexual intercourse cannot be committed in presence of so many persons watching the film. It is also improbable as alleged by prosecutrix/ complainant that all persons in theater were couple and were performing physically relationship. Further in initial complaint there is no mention that accused committed rape with her in theater; it is only when her statement was recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C., she made a material improvement, by adding fact of rape committed by accused in theater. Further in initial complaint there is no mention that accused committed rape with her in theater; it is only when her statement was recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C., she made a material improvement, by adding fact of rape committed by accused in theater. The prosecutrix is major as per investigation of I/O as on 23.2.2014 her date of birth was found to be 10.3.1995. Further no medical was done as on date of alleged rape i.e. on 23.2.2014. 16. I am conscious that statement of prosecutrix cannot be brushed aside especially in rape case; but her statement has to read along with other attending circumstances. In present case expect bald version of prosecutrix, there is nothing on record. Further as already held in initial complaint, there is nothing detail about rape and only in statement recorded u/s 164-A Cr.P.C. on 27.11.2014 after 9 month of initial complaint, the reference of alleged rape was made by prosecutrix that accused committed sexual intercourse on promise of marriage in theater. 17. In AIR 2017SC 1884 in case titled Vineet Kumar v State of UP, Hon’ble Apex Court relying upon the judgment in Prashant Bharti (supra) and Rajiv Thaper (supra) has quashed a charge sheet under section 376 IPC holding as under: 35. ---------------------------------------Apart from bald assertions by the complainant that all accused have raped, there was nothing which could have led the Courts to form an opinion that present case is fit a case of prosecution which ought to be launched. We are conscious that statement given by the prosecutrix/complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not to be lightly brushed away but the statement was required to be considered along with antecedents, facts and circumstances as noted above. Reference to the judgment of this Court in Prashant Bharti vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2013 (9) SCC 293 , is relevant for the present case. In the above case the complainant lady aged 21 years lodged an FIR under Section 328 and 354 IPC with regard to the incident dated 15.02.2007. She sent telephonic information on 16.02.2007 and on her statement FIR under Sections 328 and 354 IPC was registered against the appellant. After a lapse of five days on 21.02.2007 she gave a supplementary statement alleging rape by the appellant on 23.12.2006, 25.12.2006 and 01.01.2007. Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix was recorded. She sent telephonic information on 16.02.2007 and on her statement FIR under Sections 328 and 354 IPC was registered against the appellant. After a lapse of five days on 21.02.2007 she gave a supplementary statement alleging rape by the appellant on 23.12.2006, 25.12.2006 and 01.01.2007. Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix was recorded. Police filed charge-sheet under Section 328, 324 and 376 IPC. Charge-sheet although mentioned that no proof in support of crime under Section 328/354 could be found. However, on the ground of statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. charge-sheet was submitted. 37. The appeal was filed against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court by the accused contending that there was sufficient material collected in the investigation which proved that allegations were unfounded and the prosecution of the appellant was an abuse of process of the Court. In paragraph 23 this Court noted several circumstances on the basis of which this Court held that judicial conscience of the High Court ought to have persuaded it to quash the criminal proceedings. This Court further noticed that Investigating Officer has acknowledged that he could not find any proof to substantiate the charges. The charge-sheet had been filed only on the basis of the statement of the complainant/ prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In paragraphs 24 and 25 of the judgment following was stated: “24. Most importantly, as against the aforesaid allegations, no pleadings whatsoever have been filed by the complainant. Even during the course of hearing, the material relied upon by the accused was not refuted. As a matter of fact, the complainant/prosecutrix had herself approached the High Court, with the prayer that the first information lodged by her, be quashed. It would therefore be legitimate to conclude, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the complainant/ prosecutrix. Even in the charge sheet dated 28.6.2007, (extracted above) the investigating officer has acknowledged, that he could not find any proof to substantiate the charges. The charge-sheet had been filed only on the basis of the statement of the complainant/ prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 25. Based on the holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances summarized in the foregoing two paragraphs; we are satisfied, that all the steps delineated by this Court in Rajiv Thapar’s case (supra) stand - satisfied. The charge-sheet had been filed only on the basis of the statement of the complainant/ prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 25. Based on the holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances summarized in the foregoing two paragraphs; we are satisfied, that all the steps delineated by this Court in Rajiv Thapar’s case (supra) stand - satisfied. All the steps can only be answered in the affirmative. We therefore have no hesitation whatsoever in concluding, that judicial conscience of the High Court ought to have persuaded it, on the basis of the material available before it, while passing the impugned order, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused-appellant, in exercise of the inherent powers vested with it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, based on the conclusions drawn hereinabove, we are satisfied, that the first information report registered under Sections 328, 354and 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant-accused, and the consequential charge-sheet dated 28.6.2007, as also the framing of charges by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi on 1.12.2008, deserves to be quashed. The same are accordingly quashed.” 38. Thus, above was the case where despite statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by prosecutrix the Court referring to material collected during investigation had held that the case was fit where the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings.” 18. Further petitioner has attached a copy of attendance record of IR 19TH BN APC Jammu issued by commandant, which reveals that on 23.2.2014 the day of occurrence, he was on duty at PCR Jammu. 19. The circumstances of above case (supra) are clearly applicable to present case. In view of what has been discussed above and law on the point as above, this petition is allowed; it held that prosecution is maliciously instituted by prosecutrix with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Hence FIR No. 236/2014 dated 19.11.2014 registered at Police Station Rajbagh, Kathua under Section 376/420 RPC is quashed.