The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 376 and 506 RPC.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashes FIR alleging sexual harassment on the pretext of a false promise of marriage, observing that the complainant had been in a relationship with the accused for six to seven years.
The Court was hearing a petition to quash an FIR filed under Sections 376 and 506 of the 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 contended that a false and baseless FIR was filed at the instance of Respondent No. 2, lacking specific details such as the date, time, and place of the alleged incident. Even if the allegations are taken at face value, the FIR does not disclose any offence against the Petitioner.
It was further submitted that although the FIR claimed a seven-year relationship between the parties, the Petitioner did not even know Respondent No. 2. Records showed that during his tenure as a constable, the Petitioner had neither availed leave nor remained absent from duty, with an official service certificate submitted as proof.
Moreover, it was revealed that in 2016, Respondent No. 2’s parents approached the Petitioner’s father with a marriage proposal, which he declined. However, Respondent No. 2 insisted on marrying the Petitioner and allegedly threatened to prevent his marriage to anyone else. The FIR was filed only after the Petitioner’s engagement and subsequent wedding arrangements were made.
Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the FIR filed by Respondent No. 2 was false and frivolous, intended solely to obstruct the Petitioner’s impending marriage. It was further contended that even if the allegations in the complaint and FIR are presumed to be true, they do not establish any offence against the Petitioner—especially given Respondent No. 2’s own admission of having been in a relationship with him for seven years.
Reasoning By Court
The Court accepted the arguments presented by the Petitioner’s counsel and quashed the FIR, relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings 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.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed.