Yuvraj Singh Tomar v. State of Uttarakhand Another

Case No. 4001 of 2015 (State vs. Yuvraj Singh Tomar), arising out of FIR No. 107 of 2015, lodged at Police Station Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, under Sections 376, 313, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The FIR, which was registered on the directions of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, alleges that the Applicant induced the Informant into a physical relationship under the false promise of marriage, exploited her emotionally and financially, caused termination of her pregnancy without consent, and later refused to marry her.

3. It is stated that the relationship between the Applicant and the Informant began on an amicable note, with mutual interaction and trust. The Criminal Misc. Application No.1573 of 2019, Yuvraj Singh Tomar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 1 Ashish Naithani J. Informant, in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, alleged that the Applicant established repeated physical relations with her on the assurance of marriage, took her jewellery and money, and later deceitfully refused to solemnize the marriage. She has further alleged that she conceived during this period, and the Applicant administered medication to terminate her pregnancy against her will.

4. On behalf of the Applicant, it is contended that the relationship, if any, was consensual, and there was no inducement or false promise from the very inception. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged belatedly and only after intervention under Section 156(3) CrPC. It is argued that there is no medical evidence to support the allegation of rape or forcible miscarriage, and that the charge sheet has been filed in a mechanical and perfunctory manner, without proper evaluation of material evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant also urged that the summoning order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, is without application of mind, and that the allegations, taken at face value, do not make out a prima facie case for the offences alleged. It is argued that the case is essentially a failed relationship, sought to be given a criminal colour.

6. Learned State Counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, Sonu alias Subhash Kumar v. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 85, and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, to urge that where the allegations disclose commission of a cognizable offence and are not inherently improbable, the High Court should not interfere under Section 482 CrPC. Criminal Misc. Application No.1573 of 2019, Yuvraj Singh Tomar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 2 Ashish Naithani J.

7. It is further submitted that the Applicant did not appear despite the issuance of a non-bailable warrant dated 18.08.2017, and continues to evade the process of law. The charge sheet, it is contended, was filed after due investigation, and the summoning order reflects judicial application of mind. The present application, it is urged, is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

8. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the Applicant and learned State Counsel, and perused the record, including the FIR, the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the medical report, the charge sheet dated 19.09.2015, the summoning order dated 05.12.2015, and the counter affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer.

9. The foundational legal question in this matter is whether, taking the prosecution case at face value, the continuation of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4001 of 2015 against the Applicant constitutes an abuse of the process of law, and whether the case warrants interference under the limited jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 482 CrPC.

10. The FIR, though registered pursuant to directions under Section 156(3) CrPC, contains detailed allegations that the Applicant established a physical relationship with the complainant under a false assurance of marriage. The complainant, in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, reiterates that she was sexually exploited over a period of time, induced into physical intimacy on repeated promises of marriage, and was ultimately abandoned. She further alleges that upon conceiving, she was made to undergo an abortion without her informed consent. Criminal Misc. Application No.1573 of 2019, Yuvraj Singh Tomar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 3 Ashish Naithani J.

11. The Applicant seeks to project the relationship as consensual, arguing that the allegations pertain to a failed romantic association and that no offence is disclosed. However, the distinction between consent obtained freely and consent obtained under a misconception of fact is crucial in such matters. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, clarified that where a promise to marry is false from the inception and made solely to obtain consent for sexual intercourse, the same may vitiate consent under Section 90 IPC and attract the offence of rape under Section 375 IPC.

12. In the present case, the complainant’s Section 164 statement alleges that the Applicant misrepresented his intent to marry, continued physical relations under that pretext, and ultimately repudiated the promise. It is further stated that he took her ornaments, borrowed money, and later severed all contact. These assertions, if established at trial, could prima facie attract the ingredients of Sections 376 and 420 IPC. The additional allegation that the complainant was administered medication to cause miscarriage, without her voluntary and informed consent, also invokes Section 313 IPC, which carries grave penal consequences.

13. The contention that the medical report does not support the allegation is not decisive at this stage. The delay in registration of the FIR and in undergoing medical examination is explained by the fact that the FIR was lodged only after recourse to Section 156(3) CrPC. In her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the attending doctor noted that the delay made it difficult to offer a conclusive opinion. The absence of medical corroboration, in such cases, is not necessarily fatal, as held in State of Karnataka v. Revanna, (2004) 8 SCC 567, where the Supreme Court Criminal Misc. Application No.1573 of 2019, Yuvraj Singh Tomar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 4 Ashish Naithani J. observed that conviction for rape can be sustained even without medical evidence, if the testimony of the prosecutrix is otherwise cogent and credible.

14. The argument that the allegations are inherently improbable or mala fide does not hold merit. The complainant has given a detailed account of events, specifying the manner of inducement, the course of relationship, the circumstances of pregnancy and abortion, and the Applicant’s subsequent conduct. Her version, recorded under oath before a Magistrate, cannot be brushed aside at the threshold as vague or concocted. Whether the promise to marry was genuine or false from inception, and whether the complainant’s consent was vitiated under Section 90 IPC, are matters which require appreciation of evidence and cross-examination, and cannot be summarily adjudicated at the stage of invoking Section 482 CrPC.

15. The Applicant’s conduct in evading the process of law is also noteworthy. Despite the issuance of a non-bailable warrant dated 18.08.2017, the Applicant failed to appear before the trial court. His continued absence undermines his plea of being falsely implicated and raises serious doubts about his bona fides in approaching this Court.

16. The legal parameters for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC have been laid down authoritatively by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The present case does not fall under any categories carved out therein that would justify the quashing of proceedings. The allegations in the FIR and the supporting materials disclose a prima facie case, and the defence advanced by the Applicant requires evaluation of facts, appreciation of evidence, and scrutiny of credibility, all of which lie within the exclusive domain of the trial court. Criminal Misc. Application No.1573 of 2019, Yuvraj Singh Tomar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 5 Ashish Naithani J. ORDER This Court is, therefore, not persuaded to interfere with the charge sheet or the proceedings at this premature stage. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the continuation of proceedings amounts to a gross abuse of process or that manifest injustice would occur in the absence of quashing. The case on hand discloses triable issues which merit adjudication in accordance with law. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1573 of 2019 is dismissed. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:09.06.2025 NR/ NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d56 3d95c70eb77fa0ea4758e401cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897B CDC0B6567DCE4B7108B324FFED3C8A159F 3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT Criminal Misc. Application No.1573 of 2019, Yuvraj Singh Tomar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 6 Ashish Naithani J.