Praveen Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr

Judgment

1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 21.08.2019 submitted in Case Crime No. 20 of 2019, Police Station Mussoorie, District Dehradun, registered under Section 376 IPC, as well as the summoning order dated 19.09.2019 and the subsequent non-bailable warrant dated 18.12.2019, issued in Criminal Case No. 4796 of 2019, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

2. The FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 2, alleging that the applicant, under the pretext of marriage, had established a prolonged physical relationship with her spanning nearly five years, but ultimately refused to marry and solemnized his marriage with another person on

06.02.2019. The prosecutrix claims that the relationship was non- consensual and induced by deceit.

3. Pursuant to the investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 376 IPC against the applicant. The learned Magistrate took Criminal Misc. Application No.04 of 2020, Praveen KumarVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 1 Ashish Naithani J. cognizance of the offence and issued a summons. Upon the non- appearance of the applicant, a non-bailable warrant was issued.

4. The applicant has assailed the entire proceedings, including the summoning and NBW orders, primarily on the following grounds: (a) The applicant submitted that he and the complainant were in a consensual relationship extending over five years. (b) The nature of their intimacy and the duration of their association negate any inference of coercion or exploitation, and (c) Statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC reflect voluntary participation by the complainant.

5. It was further contended that the promise to marry was not false at its inception. The applicant submits that any failure to marry was due to intervening familial objections and not borne out of any dishonest or fraudulent intent, meaning thereby that his initial promise to marry was made in good faith and not as a pretext to establish physical relations.

There is no assertion in the FIR or statements that the promise was made with no intention to fulfil it from the outset.Asine qua non for invoking Section 376 IPC in such cases.

7. The Applicant also submits that the FIR was lodged on

30.06.2019, several months after the applicant’s marriage on

06.02.2019. The alleged incidents of physical intimacy date back to 2014–2018. There is no plausible explanation for this delay, which seriously undermines the credibility of the allegations.

8. The applicant further relied on an amicable settlement dated

15.07.2018, which, according to the applicant, has been admitted by the complainant in her counter-affidavit. This agreement, preceding the FIR, is said to reflect mutual understanding and closure of the relationship. Its non-consideration by the Investigating Officer and the Magistrate renders the process legally infirm. Criminal Misc. Application No.04 of 2020, Praveen KumarVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 2 Ashish Naithani J.

9. The applicant challenges the summoning order dated 19.09.2019 on the ground that it has been passed in a mechanical and cyclostyle manner. It is argued that the order does not reflect any application of judicial mind, nor does it deal with material contradictions or address the significance of the settlement or the issue of consent.

10. Further, the medical report does not support the allegation of forcible intercourse. Further, the applicant’s family members, initially implicated under Section 120B IPC, have been discharged during the investigation, which diminishes the narrative of a larger conspiracy.

11. It is argued the complainant’s conduct, including continuation of the relationship despite being aware of familial objections, and the timing of the FIR after the applicant’s marriage, indicates that the prosecution is malicious and an abuse of the process of law, initiated not on account of any offence but due to personal grievance.

12. Per contra, the Respondents submit that the applicant repeatedly had physical relations with her under the false pretext of marriage. It is alleged that from the very beginning, the applicant harboured no intention to marry her and only used this representation to establish physical intimacy. She states that the applicant ultimately married another woman, despite such repeated assurances.

13. In response to the plea of inordinate delay, it is submitted that the cause of action is of a continuing nature. The complainant avers that she was left with no option but to lodge the FIR once it became evident that the applicant had solemnized marriage with another individual. It is alleged that the relationship was exploitative, and the FIR was a consequence of the applicant’s ultimate betrayal of his long-standing promise to marry. Criminal Misc. Application No.04 of 2020, Praveen KumarVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 3 Ashish Naithani J.

14. The Respondent contends that her consent to physical relations was not independent or voluntary in the eyes of the law, but was obtained through deception. She asserts that, but for the repeated assurances of marriage, she would not have engaged in the relationship.

15. The complainant submits that the investigating officer conducted a proper investigation, recorded statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, and filed the charge-sheet only after examining the relevant material. It is contended that the learned Magistrate rightly took cognizance and issued summons, and there is no legal infirmity in the procedure followed.

16. Though the counter affidavit does not expressly deny the existence of the amicable settlement dated 15.07.2018, it disputes its legal effect and relevance. It is contended that the applicant continued to exploit the complainant thereafter and ultimately evaded the commitment by marrying another woman.

18. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records. This Court is mindful that its powers under Section 482 CrPC are extraordinary and are to be exercised with great caution. However, in appropriate cases, where the allegations made in the FIR or the materials relied upon in the charge-sheet, taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, it becomes not only appropriate but necessary to prevent abuse of the process of law by interceding at the threshold.

19. The core allegation in the present matter is that the applicant established physical relations with the complainant over a period of several years under the pretext of marriage and ultimately declined to solemnize the same. The prosecution’s case rests on the claim that a false promise of marriage vitiated the complainant’s consent. Criminal Misc. Application No.04 of 2020, Praveen KumarVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 4 Ashish Naithani J.

20. In such cases, the legal distinction between a breach of promise and a false promise becomes critical. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a series of judgments including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra,(2019 ) 9 SCC 608,Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2021 SC 1405, and Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675,has consistently held that for a prosecution under Section 376 IPC to be sustained on this ground, the complainant must demonstrate that the promise to marry was false from the very inception and that her consent to engage in physical intimacy was entirely predicated upon that promise.

21. In the present case, the materials on record, including the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, reveal a long- standing relationship between the parties, which endured for approximately five years. There is no categorical assertion in the FIR or the prosecutrix’s statements that the applicant never intended to marry her from the outset.

22. On the contrary, the narrative discloses that both families were involved at various stages, and marriage discussions were held but did not materialize allegedly due to familial resistance. The complainant herself continued the relationship even after being made aware of such difficulties. She has stated in her own words that she was emotionally persuaded by the applicant’s assurances, which may reflect misplaced trust, but does not prima facie establish criminal intent from the inception.

23. Further, the existence of an amicable settlement dated

15.07.2018, which was entered into prior to the applicant’s marriage and well before the FIR, significantly alters the complexion of the matter. This document, which has not been denied in the counter Criminal Misc. Application No.04 of 2020, Praveen KumarVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 5 Ashish Naithani J. affidavit and has been placed on record by the applicant, suggests that the parties had sought to resolve their disputes mutually.

24. Additionally, the FIR was lodged on 30.06.2019, several months after the applicant’s marriage and nearly a year after the purported settlement, without any cogent explanation for the intervening delay. While delay in lodging an FIR in cases involving sexual offences is not always fatal, it nonetheless requires adequate justification, particularly where the allegations pertain to incidents spanning several years and the prosecutrix is shown to have voluntarily continued the relationship despite being aware of the applicant’s familial circumstances.

25. In the present case, the unexplained delay, coupled with the timing of the FIR post the applicant’s marriage, lends credence to the applicant’s contention that the initiation of criminal proceedings may be actuated more by personal grievance than by a genuine accusation of criminal conduct.

26. The medical report on record also indicates no signs of forcible sexual intercourse. While lack of medical corroboration is not dispositive in cases alleging rape by deception, it nonetheless weakens the prosecutorial claim that the acts were non-consensual in the conventional sense. Taken together with the complainant’s admissions about the emotional basis of her consent and the amicable settlement preceding the FIR, the prosecution’s version appears to fall within the contours of a relationship that may have ended in acrimony but does not, without more, attract penal consequences under Section 376 IPC.

27. Recent decisions, including Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0787/2025, and Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal,2025 SCC OnLine SC 74, reinforce the proposition that every failure to marry, even when preceded by a promise, cannot be elevated to the status of rape. Courts have repeatedly cautioned against Criminal Misc. Application No.04 of 2020, Praveen KumarVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 6 Ashish Naithani J. the criminalisation of emotional disputes and the misuse of penal provisions in the wake of failed relationships.

28. It is now well settled, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, that in cases involving allegations of rape on the pretext of marriage, a sine qua non for invoking Section 376 IPC is that the promise to marry must have been false from the very inception. Mere breach of a promise, if made in good faith and subsequently not fulfilled due to intervening circumstances such as familial objections, cannot amount to an offence under Section 376 IPC. The prosecutrix’s consent must have been obtained under a misconception of fact caused by a deliberate misrepresentation.

29. In the considered view of this Court, the allegations and material placed on record do not disclose the commission of an offence as defined under Section 375 IPC. The nature of the relationship between the parties, as revealed through the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and the amicable settlement dated 15.07.2018, points to a prolonged consensual association influenced by social and familial factors. The facts, as they stand, do not fulfil the essential ingredients necessary to attract penal consequences under Section 376 IPC. The proceedings, in such circumstances, amount to a gross misuse of the criminal justice process and warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. ORDER Accordingly, the charge-sheet dated 21.08.2019 submitted in Case Crime No. 20 of 2019, Police Station Mussoorie, District Dehradun, and the consequential summoning order dated 19.09.2019 as well as the non-bailable warrant dated 18.12.2019 passed in Criminal Criminal Misc. Application No.04 of 2020, Praveen KumarVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 7 Ashish Naithani J. Case No. 4796 of 2019, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, are hereby quashed. The application under Section 482 CrPC stands allowed. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:03.06.2025 NR/ Criminal Misc. Application No.04 of 2020, Praveen KumarVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 8 Ashish Naithani J.