Gurmeet Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand and Another

applicant has challenged the impugned FIR No.225 of 2022 dated 13.12.2022 under Section 376 IPC, registered with P.S. Cant, District Dehradun, charge-sheet No.01 of 2023 dated 22.01.2023, cognizance/summoning order dated 10.03.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Dehradun in Criminal Case No.1788 of 2023 State Vs. Gurmeet Singh, under Section 376 IPC as well as the entire proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case.

2. The facts in the nutshell are that an FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2-Neelam Gill, against the applicant alleging therein that on the pretext of marriage, applicant had committed sexual intercourse with her since three years and deceived her and stopped receiving her calls on phone.

3. On the said FIR, after investigation, a charge- sheet No.01 of 2023 dated 22.01.2023 was submitted by Investigating Officer against the applicant and on the aforesaid charge-sheet vide order dated 10.03.2023, cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial 1 Magistrate, Dehradun under the aforesaid Section and the applicant was summoned for facing the trial. Thus, feeling aggrieved, the applicant is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Investigating Officer without collecting the credible evidence submitted Charge-sheet against the applicant and thereafter, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in a mechanical manner without going through the contents of the F.I.R., facts and evidences collected during the course of investigation, summoned the applicant to face the trial. He further submits that there is nothing mentioned in the FIR that on which date the alleged act was committed by the applicant and further there is a huge delay of three years in lodging the FIR and there was no explanation of the said delay in lodging the FIR.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent No.2 had admitted the fact that the relation between them continued for three years and it was not culminated into marriage and further the respondent No.2 was known to the fact that the applicant is married and living with his wife and his family happily. It is further contended by him that the respondent No.2 is a 50 years’ old lady and she is 15 years elder than the applicant and was used to supply milk at the applicant’s house; the applicant financially helped the respondent No.2 on being urgent need of money to her, but, when he asked to return the said amount, respondent No.2 started threatening applicant implicating in heinous false cases, regarding which an application dated 17.09.2022 was given by the applicant to the S.S.P. Dehradun (annexed as Annexure No.5). It is also contended that the 2 applicant had applied for anticipatory bail, which was registered as ABA No.353 of 2022 and the same was granted him by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on

13.03.2023.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that if the version of respondent No.2 is believed then it would not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC, because the respondent No.2 is major and she willingly consents to have intercourse for a considerable period of time. Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated

27.07.2022 in the case of Mandar Deepak Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No(s).442/2022) has also held that if a girl is major and she willingly consents the male member to have intercourse with her for a considerable period of time, then it would not be a rape.

7. Learned State Counsel has filed its counter affidavit, in which, it is contended that on the basis of statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses found cogent and credible evidence against the applicant, and therefore, Investigation Officer has rightly filed the charge-sheet against the applicant and learned CJM, after considering the entire material available on record, has rightly taken cognizance against the applicant.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit, in which, he supports the contents of the FIR and submits that the applicant is posted in Uttarakhand Police as Sub Inspector and knows about the legal remedy. He further contends that the applicant in order to save himself from the clutches of law got moved an application dated 17.09.2022 as he 3 was aware of the fact that he had committed the alleged crime and the respondent No.2 had initiated the proceeding against him. He also submits that the case law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable in the case in hand. Further, he submits that the respondent No.2 is 50 years of age and living alone and the applicant is well known to this fact and has taken undue advantage by giving false promise of marriage thereby developed physical relation.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire documents available on record, coupled with the fact that the respondent No.2 is 15 years’ elder than the applicant and further she is major and on her consensus, the physical relations were established between her and the applicant, therefore, it is in the opinion of the this Court that the allegations made by the respondent No.2 in the FIR, appear to be nothing but an exaggeration.

10. In view of the above, present C482 application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No.1788 of 2023 State Vs. Gurmeet Singh, under Section 376 IPC, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Dehradun, is hereby quashed. Resultantly charge-sheet No.01 of 2023 dated 22.01.2023 and FIR No.225 of 2022 dated

13.12.2022 under Section 376 IPC, registered with P.S. Cant, District Dehradun, also stand quashed. No order as to cost. PN PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38 331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FA E064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.07.2025 4