Remained In Relationship For Six-Seven Years: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Quashes FIR Alleging False Promise To Marriage

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed an FIR alleging sexual harassment on pretext of false promise of marriage noting that the victim remained in six-seven years old relationship with the accused.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 376 and 506 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."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Mazher Ali Khan while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate Sumeet Bhatia.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner stated that false and frivolous FIR without mentioning the date, time and place of occurrence was 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 was urged in the FIR that though it was 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. It was further demonstrated that during his service as constable, the Petitioner had not availed any kind of leave or remained absent from the duties and the original service certificate issued in this regard was 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 the 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 was lodged only because the marriage of the Petitioner was fixed after his engagement.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that false and frivolous FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 2 just to create hindrance in the solemnization of marriage of the Petitioner. It was further argued that even if, the allegations levelled in the complaint and the FIR are taken to be true, no offence is made out against the Petitioner, more particularly, when the Respondent No. 2 has herself admitted that she had remained in relation with the Petitioner for seven long years.

Reasoning By Court 

The Court accepted the submissions of the Counsel for the Petitioner and quashed the FIR relying on Supreme Court's decision in Prashant v State of NCT of Delhi, 2024, Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of W.B., 2025, Jothiragawan v. State, 2025, Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v State of UttarPradesh and another,

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Rajinder Kumar vs. State of J&K and Anr.

Click here to read/ download Order