HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

04.11.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Case No.1041 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Vikas, punishable u/s 376 and 506 IPC, along with the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.

2. The facts in brief are that an FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 against the applicant alleging therein that the applicant had committed rape under the false pretext of marriage and threatened to release her obscene videos online, if she would lodge a complaint against the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a young boy of 22 years’ of age, who recently graduated and preparing for competitive exams and lives in a rented house in Kashipur. He also submits that the respondent No.2 is 30 years old having a son of 9 years old, who lives near the rented house of the applicant. He further submits that the respondent No.2 requested the 2 applicant’s sister to teach her school going son, to which she agreed, and hence, became familiar to the applicant.

4. Learned counsel the applicant further submits that at the time of filing the FIR, applicant was only 20 years’ old, which is below the legal age of marriage, therefore, making the applicant ineligible to marry respondent No.2. He further contends that since, the respondent No.2 was already in an existing marriage and also had a child of 7 years at the time of alleged incident, it was further not possible for the applicant to establish a marital commitment with her.

5. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the charge-sheet has been filed in a mechanical manner without proper investigation. He also raised doubt over the fact that how one witness named Anjali, who is a resident of Bareilly, concerned with the alleged case. He further contends that the learned Court below, without application of judicial mind and in a routine manner, taken cognizance against the applicant and summoned him to face the trial.

6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the Investigating Officer, after detailed investigation and examining the witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and recording the statement of respondent No.2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has submitted the charge-sheet on

09.10.2022, on which the learned Judicial Magistrate has lawfully taken cognizance and summoned the applicant.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit and on the basis of which, she also took the same line of argument as that of learned State Counsel. Moreover, in her supplementary counter affidavit, she submits that the respondent No.2 got married with the applicant on 09.10.2021, the relevant photographs are also 3 annexed with the Supplementary Counter Affidavit as Annexure No.S.C.A-1.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the rejoinder affidavit, on which, he submits that the Investigating Officer, after proper investigation, had found that the respondent No.2 was a married lady at the time of alleged incident. He further submits that respondent No.2 is also a youtuber, in which, she does acting and dancing with other creators. It is also submitted that the photocopies of the photographs annexed with supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, are a part of photo shoot for Youtube, which has since been deleted from the Youtube channel of the respondent No.2. He further contends that the fact of alleged marriage solemnized between the applicant and the respondent No.2, is being for the first time raised in her supplementary counter affidavit and the respondent No.2 has made no mention of the alleged marriage in the entire course of investigation and not even in the FIR.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on record, this Court is surprised to say the least moreso, when the respondent No.2-prosecutrix is a married lady, having a son of 7 years’ of age and was of 28 years’ of age at the time of alleged incident, with all the kind of worldly experience, how was she so naïve to make physical relations with a young boy of 20 years’ of age, on the false pretext of marriage. On perusal of the factual matrix, it is quite clear that the alleged incident took place in the year 2020, whereas the respondent No.2 was in a marital relation till 2024, therefore, even if the allegations in FIR are taken to be true, such promise to marry to begin with, was illegal and unenforceable qua the applicant. Moreover, from perusal of the records, it doesn’t appear that the 4 consent to establish physical relations with respondent No.2-prosecutrix, does not appear to be given under misconception of fact and only on assurance of marriage, as respondent No.2 was very well aware of the subsistence of her own marriage. The investigation also reveals that at the time of alleged incident, she was not divorced. Therefore, it is inconceivable that she engaged in physical relationship with the application on assurance of marriage, while she was already married with someone else.

10. Moreover, there is also no evidence of coercion or threat of injury, except bald statements of respondent No.2 to establish ingredient of Section 506 IPC, her bald statements do not inspire confidence of the Court all the more when her conduct is so dubious that by way of supplementary counter affidavit, she for the first time introduced her marriage photographs with the applicant and alleged that they have solemnized their marriage in 2021, straight before this Court and made no mention about the said marriage in the contents of the FIR lodged in 2022 or during entire investigation.

11. In my considered view, this is not a case where there was a false promise to marry. At most, it is a consensual relationship, which turned sour and therefore, it cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Cases like these not only burden the Courts but also blot the identity of the individual accused of such a heinous offence. Even, the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again deprecated the filing of these kinds of cases.

12. Although, this Court is cognizant about the riders on its power to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., but, the present case squarely falls under categories enumerated in Para 102(5) and 102(7) as identified by this Court in State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 (Supra) for the exercise of powers 5 u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court so as to prevent the abuse of process of law. Para 102 reads as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and inflexible guidelines or rigid sufficiently channelised and formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding institution and instituted) continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

13. Taking into consideration that the Appellant is just 22 years of age, and has a lifetime ahead of him, it would be in the interest of justice that he does not suffer an impending trial and, therefore, the proceedings emanating 6 from Case Crime No.285 of 2022 dated 09.09.2022 are liable to be quashed.

14. In view of the above, the C482 application is allowed. Consequently, ex debitio justiciae, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1041 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Vikas, punishable u/s 376 and 506 IPC, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed. Resultantly, the impugned charge-sheet dated 09.10.2022 stands quashed.

15. of. PN Pending application, if any, also stands disposed (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 29.07.2025