Abhishek Sagar v. State of Uttarakhand Another

RespondentNo.2 (the complainant) had been colleagues since 2013, first at G.D. Goenka School, New Delhi, and later at Xceed Education Ltd., where RespondentNo.2 held a senior position. It is the case of the Applicant that their professional association led to friendship, and both parties were well aware of each other’s personal backgrounds, with RespondentNo.2 knowing that the Applicant was a married man and the Applicant being aware that she was a divorced woman with two children. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1813 of 2021-----Abhishek Sagar vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 1 Ashish Naithani J.

3. The grievance of the Applicant is that on 11.02.2018, having tendered his resignation from the company due to personal reasons, he was threatened by RespondentNo.2, who allegedly warned him that she would “teach him a lesson.” Soon thereafter, on 12.02.2018, a First Information Report was lodged by RespondentNo.2 at Police Station Prashant Vihar, Delhi, which was subsequently transferred to Police Station Kotwali, Dehradun, and registered as Case Crime No. 108 of 2018 under Sections 376, 328, and 506 IPC.

4. In the FIR, RespondentNo.2 alleged that in December 2016, while on an official tour to Dehradun, the Applicant administered an intoxicant in her drink and established physical relations with her without her consent, followed by repeated acts of sexual intercourse under the promise of marriage. The FIR was lodged more than two years after the alleged incident.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Learned counsel for the Applicant contends that even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at face value, they do not constitute offences under Sections 376, 328, or 506 IPC. It is argued that the delay of over two years in lodging the FIR, the consensual nature of their relationship, and the absence of medical evidence regarding the alleged administration of an intoxicant clearly indicate that the proceedings are nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

7. It is further submitted that the complainant was fully aware of the Applicant’s marital status since 2013. Therefore, the allegations that the Applicant induced her into physical relations on the pretext of marriage are false and inherently improbable. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1813 of 2021-----Abhishek Sagar vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 2 Ashish Naithani J.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the application, contending that the Investigating Officer, after a thorough investigation, found sufficient evidence against the Applicant, including statements of the complainant under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., medical evidence, and supporting statements of family members and hotel staff. It is argued that the trial court, upon applying its judicial mind, rightly took cognizance and issued summons to the Applicant.

9. The law with respect to quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well-settled. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down illustrative categories where such powers can be exercised, including cases where the allegations do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intentions and instituted with an ulterior motive.

10. In the present case, the admitted position is that the alleged incident took place in December 2016, while the FIR came to be lodged only on

12.02.2018, i.e., after more than two years. This unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the FIR strikes at the very root of the prosecution case and casts serious doubt on its genuineness.

11. Further, the complainant, being a well-educated and independent woman, had ample opportunity to report the alleged incident immediately, particularly when she was staying at a hotel in a public place. The continued association between the parties for over a year after the alleged incident and the subsequent lodging of the FIR only upon the Applicant’s resignation from the company lend credence to the Applicant’s plea of mala fide.

12. As regards the allegation of administering an intoxicant, it is noteworthy that there is no contemporaneous medical evidence to Criminal Misc. Application No. 1813 of 2021-----Abhishek Sagar vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 3 Ashish Naithani J. substantiate this claim. The medical report obtained much later cannot retroactively establish the administration of any stupefying substance.

13. The allegation of sexual intercourse under the false promise of marriage also does not stand to scrutiny given the admitted knowledge of the complainant regarding the Applicant’s marital status since 2013. Thus, the element of deception, which is the core of such an allegation, is absent.

14. The material on record, when taken in its entirety, does not disclose the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 376, 328, or 506 IPC. Continuation of the criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to harassment of the Applicant and a clear abuse of the process of law.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the charge sheet dated 03.08.2018, the cognizance order dated 12.12.2018, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6504 of 2018 are liable to be quashed. ORDER The Criminal Misc. Application No. 1813 of 2021 is allowed. The charge sheet dated 03.08.2018, the cognizance order dated

12.12.2018, and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6504 of 2018 (State vs. Abhishek Sagar) under Sections 376, 328, and 506 IPC, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, are hereby quashed. No order as to costs Ashish Naithani, J. Dated: 23.07.2025 NR/ Criminal Misc. Application No. 1813 of 2021-----Abhishek Sagar vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 4 Ashish Naithani J.