Janak Raj Kotwal JUDGMENT
Janak Raj Kotwal, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. whereby petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 103/2017 of Police Station, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu registered against him in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on a complaint lodged by respondent No. 3 (complainant) for commission of offences under Sections 376, 406, 420, 493, 494, 495, 496 and 497 RPC.
2. Case set up by the complainant in the complaint filed by her precisely is that in February, 2014 she secured job in Shulhul Mahindra, Jammu where petitioner was working as General Manager. On asking of the petitioner, she gave her contact number to him and they started chatting frequently through messages and whatsapp. In last week of February, 2014, petitioner made a proposal for marriage with her, she agreed and they got married on 17.01.2015. After their marriage she resided and cohabited with the petitioner as his wife in rented accommodation for seven months at Sainik Colony, Jammu. In July, 2015 they shifted to Paloura and stayed there for about one year. Behaviour of the petitioner, in the meantime, had changed. He had been torturing her and deserted her in the month of April, 2016 when she shifted to the house of her parents and stayed there up to January, 2017. At the instance of the petitioner, she resumed company with him and they started living in a Flat at Tope Sherkhania, Jammu. Complainant alleged further that three months after their marriage she became suspicious about character of the petitioner and that he was already a married man. She approached the residential house of petitioner at Roop Nagar, Jammu where on inquiry his mother said that petitioner was not already married. At a later stage, she, however, came to know that petitioner has already been married to one Sabia Sambyal in the year 2002 and that wedlock has procreated two daughters. Complainant alleged in the complaint that she had bona fidely believed that the petitioner was her husband and cohabited with him under that belief but the intention of the petitioner was to cheat her and to have sexual intercourse with her for his sexual pleasure knowing that he is not her husband. She alleged also that the petitioner intentionally and deliberately kept her in dark during the entire period by not divulging that he was already a married man and thereby committed offences under Sections 376, 406, 420, 493, 494, 495, 496 and 497 RPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rohit Kohli, Advocate, submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant and the FIR has been lodged with oblique motive of victimizing and harassing the petitioner. While denying the allegations leveled in the FIR in general, learned counsel submitted in particular that there is huge unexplained delay in lodging the FIR in view of the admission of the complainant that the marriage was solemnized in February, 2014 and she suspected that petitioner was a married man after about three months of their marriage. Learned counsel argued further that no cognizable offence, much less an offence under Section 376 RPC, can be said to have been committed on the basis of the allegations leveled by the complainant as alleged second marriage at the most constitutes an offence under Section 493 RPC, which is a non-cognizable offence.
4. Per contra, learned Sr. AA G, Mr. S.S. Nanda and learned counsel for complainant, Mr. M.A. Bhat, submitted that the petitioner proposed and solemnized marriage with the complainant by concealing the factum of his first marriage. The complainant cohabited with and allowed sexual relation with the petitioner under the impression that he was her legally wedded husband but to the knowledge of the petitioner he was not his legally wedded husband for the marriage having been solemnized in the life time of the first wife of the petitioner, which fact was known to the petitioner but not to the com........