MANIK SETH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant petition filed under Sec. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C) petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.147/2018 dtd. 6/5/2018, registered with Police Station, Domana, Jammu for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 376/366 RPC against the petitioner and the proceedings/investigation being conducted by the respondent against the petitioner in the impugned FIR.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he and complainant-X (name withheld) were having a love affair for the last four years and after such a long drawn love affair, the engagement of the petitioner and the complainant took place, but the complainant refused for the marriage with the petitioner. It is stated that the complainant filed an application under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking directions to the SHO Police Station, Domana, Jammu to register an FIR against the petitioner in which a highly baseless and vexatious story of kidnapping and rape has been projected. Besides other accusation, it has been alleged by the complainant that on 28h April 2018 the petitioner was alleged to have kidnapped the complainant, who is living at Satwari Jammu from Domana i.e. the place where the petitioner is living and took her to Reasi where she was allegedly intoxicated and the petitioner was alleged to have committed rape on her on the pretext of marrying the complainant. It is further stated that on the directions of the Ld. Magistrate, the respondent has registered the impugned FIR No.0147 of 2018 dtd. 6/5/2018 for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 366 and 376 RPC against the petitioner.

(3.) It is contended that the allegations alleged in the impugned FIR against the petitioner are highly baseless and frivolous inasmuch as from Jammu to Katra the complainant had driven the own car of the petitioner whereas the petitioner had sit next to her in the car. The complainant was driving the car herself is quite evident from their conversation which the petitioner had recorded in his mobile phone and can be produced before the Court as and when directed. It is further contended that the complainant is a resident of Satwari, Jammu whereas the petitioner is a resident of Domana, Jammu. The complainant in her complaint/FIR has herself-admitted that she has gone to Domana, Jammu. If the complainant had herself gone to Domana and took the petitioner along with her to go to Reasi then the allegations of kidnapping alleged against the petitioner in the impugned FIR are not at all made out. It is stated that a bare perusal of the impugned FIR clearly shows that no allegation of sexual relations with any related details has been alleged in the impugned FIR and even the complainant before filing petition under Sec. 156(3) before the Ld. CJM Jammu did not approach the concerned Police Station, or SP Jammu as per the mandate of provisions of Sec. 154(1) of Cr.P.C. and 154(3) of Cr.?.?. If this been the position, then in the FIR these factors could have been reflected as the contents of FIR are generally reproduction of the complaint/application filed under Sec. 156(3) and forwarded to the concerned Police Station.