JUDGMENT : 1. Impugned in this petition is an FIR bearing No. 33/2021, dated 02.06.2021 under Section 376 IPC registered by respondent No. 1 at the instance of respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner, who is serving in the Indian Air Force as Corporal and presently posted at 19WG, Guwahati since 07.03.2018, has stated in the petition that the respondent No. 2 met him in the year 2012 through a common friend once or twice and for the last 8 years, he has not seen respondent No. 2 even once, what to say of establishing physical relations with her. The petitioner has claimed that he has never ever tried to contact the respondent No. 2 telephonically as well for all along these 8 years, rather it is the respondent No. 2 who has been trying to establish contact with the petitioner by sending messages from her Mobile No. XXXXXXXXXX. Every time the petitioner blocked the phone number of respondent No. 2, she used to change her number and again start pursuing the petitioner and blackmail him by threatening to implicate him in a false rape case unless the petitioner accepted the demand of the respondent No. 2 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The petitioner has annexed with the present petition the text and whatsapp messages sent by the respondent No. 2 to him, to demonstrate that the respondent No. 2 has been blackmailing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, give half of his land and half of his salary for the entire period of her life. It is stated by the petitioner that he faced the harassment at the instance of respondent No. 2 only to ensure that his service record remains unblemished but at the same time, the petitioner never succumbed to the blackmailing tactics of the respondent No. 2. It is further stated that the petitioner had come to his home on leave in July/August 2019, when the respondent No. 2 who also lived in the same Village came to his house and created a scene. Due to intervention of the villagers and Sarpanch, the petitioner was saved. The villagers told respondent No. 2 that if she had been wronged, she should lodge a complaint, but she did not choose to do so, as the petitioner had not done any wrong to her. Due to intervention of the villagers and Sarpanch, the petitioner was saved. The villagers told respondent No. 2 that if she had been wronged, she should lodge a complaint, but she did not choose to do so, as the petitioner had not done any wrong to her. Again, in the year 2020 when the petitioner came to his Village on leave, the respondent No. 2 again tried to blackmail the petitioner on the pretext of filing FIR against him and finally in the year 2021, the impugned FIR was got registered by respondent No. 2 when the petitioner again came to his Village after obtaining the leave. 3. By pleading these facts, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the FIR on the ground that the FIR impugned is vague and the respondent No. 2 has not even cited a single specific event for implicating the petitioner in the commission of offence of rape and even the place of alleged occurrence is also not forthcoming from the FIR impugned. It is also contended by the petitioner that as there was no physical contact with respondent No. 2/complainant so, there was no question of petitioner extending any promise to her, to solemnize marriage and to seek sexual favour under that pretext. It is also urged by the petitioner that the whatsapp messages and text messages from the phone number of respondent No. 2 make it explicitly clear that she has been pursuing her agenda to blackmail the petitioner to extort unjustified money from the petitioner. 4. The status report stands filed by respondent No. 1, wherein it has been stated that on 02.06.2021, the complainant submitted a written complaint with Police Station, Khour to the effect that one person, namely, Vikash Singh Manhas S/o Sham Singh R/o Pangali, Khour has been committing rape upon her for the last 3-4 years on the pretext of marriage. On receipt of this complaint, FIR bearing No. 33/2021 under Section 376 IPC was registered with the Police Station, Khour and the investigation of the case was entrusted to PSI Akhil Sen. The investigation was conducted, and the site plan was prepared. The place of occurrence was an agricultural field/plot situated near the temple of Baba Krishan Ji located in the Pangali Village Khour. The investigation was conducted, and the site plan was prepared. The place of occurrence was an agricultural field/plot situated near the temple of Baba Krishan Ji located in the Pangali Village Khour. It is further stated that the petitioner used to call the victim over the place in the evening hours and was repeatedly committing sexual intercourse on the pretext of false promise to marry. The first intercourse took place in the year 2017 and thereafter, on each occasion when he used to come home on leave from his unit. The medical examination of respondent No. 2 was also conducted and as per the medical report, the victim was found to be habitual to sexual intercourse. Thereafter, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. before the learned JMIC, Akhnoor, wherein she stated that the petitioner has been sexually exploiting her for the last 3-4 years on the pretext of false promise of marriage. It is also stated that during the investigation, call detail reports of both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 were obtained and as per the details, the victim sent the text messages to the petitioner from 15.07.2020 to 26.05.2021 which the petitioner did not reply but communicated with her from 01.11.2020 to 26.05.2021 which falsifies the claim of the petitioner that he had never communicated with the victim. 5. The respondent No. 2 has also filed the response stating therein that the petitioner promised to marry her and forced her to have physical relationship with him and threatened her that if she did not maintain the physical relations with the petitioner, the petitioner would commit suicide. Under the fear of threat, respondent No. 2 started physical contact/sexual relationship with the petitioner. It is further averred that during the year 2013-2018, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 had physical contacts/sexual relations with each other. The petitioner, on the pretext of false promise to marry, had maintained sexual relations with the respondent No. 2 on each occasion when he would visit the Village from the place of his posting. The respondent No. 2 was doing her post-graduation through distance education from Jammu University and during the classes, she used to reside in rented accommodation at Jewel, Jammu. The petitioner used to live with her during that time. The respondent No. 2 was doing her post-graduation through distance education from Jammu University and during the classes, she used to reside in rented accommodation at Jewel, Jammu. The petitioner used to live with her during that time. It is also averred that in the year 2018-19, when the respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner that both of them were having relationship since long so, they should solemnize marriage, the petitioner denied to solemnize marriage and also threatened to eliminate her. Aggrieved of false promise of marriage and commission of rape upon her by the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 approached the Police Station, Khour in the year 2019, by submitting an application for taking legal action against the petitioner but the concerned Police Station did not take any action. On 30.05.2021, on the application submitted by respondent No. 2, the petitioner was formally arrested but Sarpanch of the Village who happened to be uncle of the petitioner called her at his residence and prepared a false agreement/ compromise, whereby the petitioner undertook to solemnize the marriage with the respondent No. 2 within a period of two months and with the intervention of Sarpanch, the concerned SHO let off the petitioner from his custody. On 01.06.2021, she again went to Police Station, Khour and sat there in protest and then only, the respondent No. 1 registered FIR against the petitioner. It is also stated that her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. She has annexed a copy of the same along with her objections. The respondent No. 2 has denied having sent any message to the petitioner from her Mobile No. XXXXXXXXXX and she has further stated the whatsapp messages annexed with the petition are false and fabricated. She has also placed on record the document signed by the petitioner whereby he sought five months' time to settle the issue and had assured her that he would marry her without any fail. The agreement/compromise signed only by the respondent No. 2 has also been placed on record. 6. She has also placed on record the document signed by the petitioner whereby he sought five months' time to settle the issue and had assured her that he would marry her without any fail. The agreement/compromise signed only by the respondent No. 2 has also been placed on record. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the FIR is vague and from the objections filed by respondent No. 2, it is evident that no offence of rape has been committed by the petitioner and even if the allegations leveled by the respondent No. 2 in FIR are accepted to be true in its entirety, still no offence is made out against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments in cases titled, 'XXXX versus State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 (3) JKJ 0[SC] and 'Jasmit Singh vs. State of J&K & Ors.' 2021 (6) JKJ 143 [HC]. 7. Per contra, Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, learned Dy. AG appearing for the respondent No. 1 has vehemently argued that the petitioner fraudulently obtained the consent of respondent No. 2 and entered into physical relationship with the respondent No. 2, therefore, clear case of offence under Section 376 IPC is made out against the petitioner. He has further argued that the petitioner has not demonstrated any circumstance which prevented him from solemnizing the marriage with the respondent No. 2. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The allegations leveled against the petitioner in the FIR impugned are extracted as under:- "I have been grossly wronged. Vikash Singh Manhas and she are the residents of the same village. He has been maintaining relations with her for the last 3-4 years. He is employed in Air Force. He proposed marriage to her and on his repeated asking, she agreed and then he started to ask for physical relations. First, he committed rape upon her in the field towards the backside of his house. Then he used to call her to the fields/village gardens and sometimes would ask her to come out during the night and kept using her. He kept committing rape on the pretext of contracting marriage with her and he kept making excuses that he has to construct the house, marry his sister and that he has also to get his mother treated. He only kept making excuses and false promises. He kept committing rape on the pretext of contracting marriage with her and he kept making excuses that he has to construct the house, marry his sister and that he has also to get his mother treated. He only kept making excuses and false promises. Few days ago, he had come to his home on leave and was asking for physical relations but when she refused, he started advancing threats of killing her. Now he had refused to solemnize marriage with her." 10. In the FIR, the respondent No. 2 has alleged that the petitioner offered to marry her and thereafter, he asked for maintaining physical relationship and he maintained the physical relations for the first time in the field. Thereafter, he maintained physical relations with her at different places. It is further alleged that the petitioner continued to indulge in sexual relationship with her on the pretext of marriage. The petitioner is right in his submission that no date, month or year of alleged sexual exploitation has been mentioned by the respondent No. 2 in the FIR. During the investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. before the court of JMIC, Akhnoor, wherein she has stated that the petitioner was known to her since 2017. The petitioner made a false promise of marriage with her and for the last 3-4 years, he had been maintaining physical relations with her. She believed him and maintained physical relations with her consent. She further stated that the petitioner induced her to enter into physical relationship by promise of marriage. She has further stated that the petitioner had not talked to her for the last one year. She lodged the FIR only because the petitioner had betrayed and left her. 11. In the reply filed by respondent No. 2, it is stated by her that the petitioner forced her for maintaining physical relationship by threatening that if she did not maintain physical relations with him, he would commit suicide. This story of alleged threats has neither been projected in the FIR nor mentioned in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. 12. The following facts are admitted by the prosecutrix:- (a) That she had been in physical relationship with the petitioner for the last 3-4 years. (b) That the petitioner had assured her that he would marry her. P.C. 12. The following facts are admitted by the prosecutrix:- (a) That she had been in physical relationship with the petitioner for the last 3-4 years. (b) That the petitioner had assured her that he would marry her. (c) That the petitioner entered into compromise with her and had even sought five months' time for marriage. 13. From the above facts, it is clear that respondent No. 2 was having physical relations with the petitioner, though no specific month, date of maintaining physical relations with the petitioner has been mentioned either in the FIR or in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. This Court in case titled, 'Jasmit Singh vs. State of J&K & Ors.'(Supra) quashed the FIR by observing as under:- "19. Otherwise also, law is well settled that when there is allegation that the sexual relationships were made on the basis of false promise of marriage, then it has to be established that promise of marriage was a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 , the Apex Court quashed the FIR by observing as under: "18. To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the "consent" of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the "consent" was vitiated by a "misconception of fact" arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act. 19. The allegations in the FIR indicate that in November 2009 the complainant initially refused to engage in sexual relations with the accused, but on the promise of marriage, he established sexual relations. However, the FIR includes a reference to several other allegations that are relevant for the present purpose. They are as follows: 19.1. The complainant and the appellant knew each other since 1998 and were intimate since 2004. However, the FIR includes a reference to several other allegations that are relevant for the present purpose. They are as follows: 19.1. The complainant and the appellant knew each other since 1998 and were intimate since 2004. The complainant and the appellant met regularly, travelled great distances to meet each other, resided in each other's houses on multiple occasions, engaged in sexual intercourse regularly over a course of five years and on multiple occasions visited the hospital jointly to check whether the complainant was pregnant. 19.3. The appellant expressed his reservations about marrying the complainant on 31-1-2014. This led to arguments between them. Despite this, the appellant and the complainant continued to engage in sexual intercourse until March 2015. 20. The appellant is a Deputy Commandant in the CRPF while the complainant is an Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. 21. The allegations in the FIR do not on their face indicate that the promise by the appellant was false, or that the complainant engaged in sexual relations on the basis of this promise. There is no allegation in the FIR that when the appellant promised to marry the complainant, it was done in bad faith or with the intention to deceive her. The appellant's failure in 2016 to fulfil his promise made in 2008 cannot be construed to mean the promise itself was false. The allegations in the FIR indicate that the complainant was aware that there existed obstacles to marrying the appellant since 2008, and that she and the appellant continued to engage in sexual relations long after their getting married had become a disputed matter. Even thereafter, the complainant travelled to visit and reside with the appellant at his postings and allowed him to spend his weekends at her residence. The allegations in the FIR belie the case that she was deceived by the appellant's promise of marriage. Therefore, even if the facts set out in the complainant's statements are accepted in totality, no offence under Section 375 IPC has occurred." 20. Further the Apex Court in Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in 2021 (2) JKJ 337 [SC], has referred to following three important aspects while quashing the charge sheet: "i. The relationship between the appellant and the second respondent was of a consensual nature; ii. Further the Apex Court in Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in 2021 (2) JKJ 337 [SC], has referred to following three important aspects while quashing the charge sheet: "i. The relationship between the appellant and the second respondent was of a consensual nature; ii. The parties were in the relationship for about a period of one and half year; and iii. Subsequently, appellant had expressed disinclination to marry the second respondent which led to the registration of F.I.R" (emphasis added) 14. Though, neither in the FIR nor in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C, she has deposed with regard to her residing with the petitioner while she was residing in rental accommodation at Jewal, Jammu during her postgraduation course but in the response filed by the respondent No. 2, she has stated that she was doing her postgraduation in Jammu University through distance education and while she was staying in a rental accommodation at Jewel, Jammu, the petitioner used to live with her during that period. It is also evident that the respondent No. 2 was 26 years of age when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the learned Magistrate on 05.06.2021. The respondent No.2 is a grown-up and mature lady capable of understanding the consequences of the acts in which she had indulged with the petitioner. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled "XXXX Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another" reported in 2024 (3) JKJ 0[SC], took note of the following facts: "6. Firstly, we refer to the stand taken by the complainant in the FIR and the statement she get recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. There are discrepancies therein. 6.1. In the FIR, she stated that she was managing her own cloth shop. As there was a dispute with her husband, she was living separately. On 10.12.2018, she got divorce from her husband. She has a daughter aged 15 years. In 2017, Sadbhav Company had taken first floor of their house on rent in which the appellant, who was working with the company, stayed. During spare time, he would come and sit on her shop. Gradually, the relations developed. As she was living separately from her husband, the appellant proposed that in case she takes divorce, he will marry her. In 2017, Sadbhav Company had taken first floor of their house on rent in which the appellant, who was working with the company, stayed. During spare time, he would come and sit on her shop. Gradually, the relations developed. As she was living separately from her husband, the appellant proposed that in case she takes divorce, he will marry her. After the divorce of the complainant, on 10.01.2019, at about 11.00 PM, the appellant came to her room and had physical relations. He did not stop even when she said that they were yet to be married. Further, on a promise to marry, he had relations with her on 06.06.2020. When she insisted for marriage, the appellant said that his family was not agreeing. Finally, he refused on 11.12.2020. Thereafter, the FIR was got registered on 11.12.2020. 6.2. While getting her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she admitted that she knew the appellant since 2017. On account of dispute with her husband, she was living with her parents. As she got acquainted with the appellant, they fell in love. In 2018, the appellant went to Maharashtra for job. However, he used to visit her home and take care of the complainant as well as her daughter. In 2019, the appellant assured the complainant that he will marry her in case she takes divorce from her husband who used to harass and beat her. For this reason, she divorced her husband and solemnized marriage with the appellant in the temple in January 2019. Thereafter, they started living together with her daughter born from the previous marriage. Despite assurance, the appellant did not solemnized court marriage. After marriage was solemnized in temple, treating the appellant as her husband, they both started leading a married life having physical relations from January 2019 till June 2020. The appellant treated the complainant as his wife. Thereafter, the appellant refused to respond to her calls and even marry her. 6.3. There was complete charge in the stand of the complainant in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. The fact remains that the parties admittedly were in relations from 2017 onwards. Some alleged promise to marry came in January 2019, from where they started having physical relations. 6.3. There was complete charge in the stand of the complainant in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. The fact remains that the parties admittedly were in relations from 2017 onwards. Some alleged promise to marry came in January 2019, from where they started having physical relations. It has also come on record that it is not only the consent of the complainant which is clearly evident but also of the parents and daughter of the complainant as they were living in the same house, where allegedly the appellant and the complainant were having physical relations." and proceeded ahead to quash the FIR impugned by observing as under: "8. From the contents of the complaint, on the basis of which FIR was got registered and the statement got recorded by the complainant, it is evident that there was no promise to marry initially when the relations between the parties started in the year 2017. In any case, even on the dates when the complainant alleges that the parties had physical relations, she was already married. She falsely claimed that the divorce from her earlier marriage took place on 10.12.2018. However, the fact remains that decree of divorce was passed only on 13.01.2021. It is not a case where the complainant was of an immature age who could not foresee her welfare and taken right decision. She was a grown up lady about ten years elder to the appellant. She was matured and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of the moral and immoral acts for which she consented during subsistence of her earlier marriage. In fact, it was a case of betraying her husband. It is the admitted case of the prosecutrix that even after the appellant shifted to Maharashtra for his job, he used to come and stay with the family and they were living as husband and wife. It was also the stand taken by the appellant that he had advanced loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the prosecutrix through banking channel which was not returned back." (emphasis added) 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. State of UP & Ors". "Salib v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 947 has held as under: "26. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. 1,00,000/- to the prosecutrix through banking channel which was not returned back." (emphasis added) 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. State of UP & Ors". "Salib v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 947 has held as under: "26. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."(emphasis added) 17. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."(emphasis added) 17. From the facts as extracted from the FIR, statement of the respondent No. 2 recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and the objections filed by the respondent No. 2, this Court is not having an iota of doubt that the respondent No. 2 entered into physical relations with the petitioner with her consent and the FIR was lodged only when for one reason or the other, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 could not be solemnized. 18. For all what has been said and discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no offence under section 376 IPC is made out against the petitioner and if the investigation in the FIR impugned is allowed to be continued, it would amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, FIR No. 33/2021 under Section 376 IPC registered with Police Station, Khour, is quashed. 19. After perusing the case diary, the same has been returned to Mr. P.D. Singh, learned Dy. AG in the open court. 20. Disposed of. Bail App No. 165/2021 21. With the disposal of the main petitioner bearing CRM(M) No. 335/2021, the present bail application has been rendered infructuous. As such, the same is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.