Sushil Kumar Arya v. Presence

Judgment

1. The present application has been instituted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, invoking the inherent powers of this Court for quashing of FIR No. 211 of 2021, registered at Police Station Jhabrera, District Haridwar, under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The said FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 2, Smt. Anita Karanwal, alleging that the Applicant, Sushil Kumar Arya, committed sexual intercourse with her under the false promise of marriage and later declined to solemnize the marriage, thereby subjecting her to emotional exploitation and humiliation. The complaint further alleges that when the informant confronted the Applicant about his change in behaviour, he threatened her with dire consequences, causing fear and trauma.

3. Shri B. S. Adhikari, learned Counsel for the Applicant, strenuously argued that the allegations contained in the FIR are inherently improbable and devoid of legal substance. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged at a much belated stage, and is in fact a Criminal Misc. Application No.1793 of 2021, Sushil Kumar Arya Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 1 Ashish Naithani J. counterblast to certain personal disagreements that arose between the Applicant and Respondent No. 2.

4. Learned Counsel contended that there was never any intent on the part of the Applicant to deceive or exploit the informant, and that the relationship between the parties was entirely consensual, entered into by two adults of sound mind. The FIR, it is urged, is bereft of any cogent material or independent corroboration and has been instituted solely to exert undue pressure upon the Applicant.

5. It is further contended that a bare reading of the FIR does not disclose any offence under Section 376 IPC, as it fails to establish that the informant's consent was obtained by deception or based on a false promise known to be false from the inception.

6. In support of this contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, and Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675, to contend that mere breach of a promise to marry, without a showing that the promise was false at the time it was made, does not attract the offence of rape.

7. It is argued that the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court mandate a careful distinction between a breach of contract or misunderstanding and a criminal offence.

8. Learned Counsel emphasized that the FIR lacks particulars regarding dates, locations, and specific acts allegedly constituting the offence. It is also argued that the threat allegations under Section 506 IPC are general, vague, and do not inspire confidence.

9. Furthermore, no medical evidence, complaint to authorities, or any earlier communication by the informant exists on record to substantiate the claim of sexual exploitation. The FIR, it is submitted, is an afterthought, lacking bona fides, and its continuation would result in Criminal Misc. Application No.1793 of 2021, Sushil Kumar Arya Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 2 Ashish Naithani J. a grave miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, it is prayed that the FIR and the entire proceedings arising therefrom be quashed.

10. Per contra, Shri Bharat Singh, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2, opposed the application and submitted that the FIR discloses a cognizable and grave offence which cannot be lightly quashed at the threshold.

11. It is submitted that the Applicant had intentionally misled the informant into believing that he would marry her, and using that false assurance, he induced her to establish a physical relationship. According to the informant, the deception was not incidental or innocent but deliberate and premeditated.

12. Learned Counsel submitted that the Applicant’s conduct amounts to a classic case of false promise of marriage made with dishonest intention, and hence falls squarely within the ambit of Section 376 IPC as interpreted by recent authoritative pronouncements.

13. It is further urged that the veracity of the allegations, the existence of mens rea, and whether consent was vitiated by deceit are all matters that can only be determined after a full-fledged trial based on evidence, and not in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

14. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal, (2015) 7 SCC 681, wherein it was observed that courts must refrain from exercising inherent jurisdiction in cases involving sexual offences, unless the case falls within the rarest of rare categories.

15. It is argued that the scope of inquiry at this stage is limited to whether the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of an offence, and not whether the allegations will ultimately result in a conviction.

16. Shri Vipul Painuli, learned Additional Government Advocate, also opposed the application on behalf of the State. He submitted that Criminal Misc. Application No.1793 of 2021, Sushil Kumar Arya Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 3 Ashish Naithani J. the FIR, on its face, discloses specific allegations of inducement, betrayal, and criminal intimidation.

17. The informant has clearly stated that the Applicant used her emotional and social vulnerability to exploit her physically under a false promise.

18. It is argued that the investigation is at a nascent stage and that any interference by this Court at this juncture would amount to pre-empting the entire investigation and trial process.

19. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that where the allegations involve violation of bodily autonomy and sexual dignity, the Court must be circumspect in invoking its inherent jurisdiction.

20. Both learned Counsel strongly urged that the FIR raises serious triable issues, and this is not a case where the complaint can be said to be manifestly frivolous, absurd, or barred by law.

21. 22. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The law relating to exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings is well settled. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated illustrative categories in which interference may be warranted. However, it has been consistently held that such jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law or where the allegations are manifestly absurd or inherently improbable.

23. In the present case, the allegations levelled by the informant, Respondent No. 2, are that the Applicant induced her into a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her, causing her emotional trauma and social stigma. The specific assertion is that the promise of marriage was false from the beginning and made solely to obtain sexual favours. It is also alleged that the Criminal Misc. Application No.1793 of 2021, Sushil Kumar Arya Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 4 Ashish Naithani J. informant was threatened when she confronted the Applicant. Though disputed by the Applicant, these allegations prima facie disclose the commission of cognisable offences.

24. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has contended that the relationship, if any, was consensual, and that a subsequent refusal to marry does not ipso facto amount to rape unless the promise was false from inception. Reliance was placed on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that to attract the offence of rape in such cases, it must be established that the promise to marry was false at the time it was made, and that the accused never intended to fulfil it. While this proposition is well established, applying that principle depends on the facts of each case.

25. Whether or not the promise was false from the inception, whether the informant’s consent was vitiated by deception, and whether the physical relationship was truly consensual or obtained through inducement, are all questions that require evidence and cannot be adjudicated based on a bare reading of the FIR or the pleadings in a quashing petition. These are matters for trial.

26. At this stage, the Court is not called upon to evaluate the strength of the prosecution's case or the likelihood of conviction. The test is whether the FIR, read as a whole and taken at face value, discloses the commission of any offence. If the allegations are not inherently absurd or legally untenable, interference at this stage would not be warranted. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirukkural Perumal, (1995) 2 SCC 449, the Supreme Court cautioned against short-circuiting criminal trials in involving serious offences on the basis of preliminary assessment.

27. Further, the learned Magistrate has not yet taken cognizance or issued process based on a final report. An investigation is underway, Criminal Misc. Application No.1793 of 2021, Sushil Kumar Arya Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 5 Ashish Naithani J. and the investigating agency has yet to collect relevant material that may either support or disprove the informant's version. Interfering at this stage would not only be premature but also amount to prejudging the matter without a complete factual foundation.

28. As regards the allegations under Section 506 IPC, while they may appear general, they are part of a broader narrative. They cannot be severed from the primary allegation under Section 376 IPC. Whether these allegations are true, exaggerated, or fabricated will also be a matter of evidence. There is no material on record to demonstrate that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast to any legitimate action by the Applicant, nor is there any contemporaneous record or compelling circumstance that would establish mala fides on the part of the informant to the extent that the complaint must be nipped in the bud.

29. In light of the legal position and the factual context, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or exceptional circumstance that would justify quashing the FIR at this stage. The Applicant is at liberty to raise all contentions available in law before the appropriate forum during the course of investigation or at the stage of framing of charge, as the case may be. ORDER Given the foregoing discussion and careful consideration of the material on record, this Court finds no ground to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1793 of 2021, filed by the Applicant, is hereby dismissed. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:11.06.2025 NR/ NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d563d95c70eb77f a0ea4758e401cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897BCDC0B6567D CE4B7108B324FFED3C8A159F3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT Criminal Misc. Application No.1793 of 2021, Sushil Kumar Arya Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 6 Ashish Naithani J.