Uttarakhand High Court
C482/1554/2022 on 18 May, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C482 No. 1554 of 2022
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Sr. Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate for
the applicant.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the State
of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Kirti Sharan Agarwal, Advocate for
respondent no. 2.
2. In this case, an FIR was lodged by
respondent no. 2 on 08.04.2022 under
Sections 323, 376, 506 of IPC and Section
3(1)(x) of SCST Act. In the FIR, it was
alleged that applicant and the complainant
were having relations for last more than two
years and the victim was induced on the
false pretext of marriage given by the
applicant and several times physical
relations were established between them.
Thereafter, ultimately, the applicant have
abused her with caste related remarks and
on the ground that she belongs to a lower
caste refused to marry her.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant would submit that before lodging
of the present FIR, father of respondent no.
2 have made a complaint on 06.04.2022
that respondent no. 2 went to Jaspur for
some work, but, did not return back and
she is using different phones and thus he
has apprehension that his daughter is in the
company of the applicant. Learned counsel
for the applicant would further submit that
only vague allegations have been levelled
against the applicant. Even bare perusal of
the FIR would reveal that it is a case of love
relation, which got sour after some time and
applicant and respondent no. 2 were
studying in the same college. At the time of
incident, applicant was aged about 22
years, while respondent no. 2 was aged
about 21 years. In her statement under
Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., she has
narrated this story of the prosecution. It is
further submitted that a compounding
application was also filed by the parties in
which an affidavit was also filed before the
Court that the FIR was lodged due to some
misunderstanding between the parties, but,
after filing of the compounding application,
the parties did not appear to press their
compounding application.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
complainant would submit that the
applicant time and again cozed the victim
for making physical relations on the false
pretext of marriage. This shows that
physical relations between them were
made as the victim was induced by the
applicant on the false pretext of marriage.
To support his case, learned counsel for
the complainant has relied upon a
judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.
Naushad, (2013) 16 SCC 651, whereby, it
is held that ‘consent is not such a consent
as is intended by any section of this Code,
if the consent is given by a person under
fear of injury, or under a misconception of
fact, and if the person doing the act
knows, or has reason to believe, that the
consent was given in consequence of such
fear or misconception.’ It is further held in
the aforesaid judgment that ‘a woman’s
body is not a man’s plaything and he
cannot take advantage of it in order to
satisfy his lust and desires by fooling a
woman into consenting to sexual
intercourse simply because he wants to
indulge in it.”
5. To this, learned counsel for the
applicant would submit that general and
vague allegations have been levelled
against the applicant regarding making
physical relations on the false pretext of
marriage and these allegations are not
corroborated by any evidence. Learned
counsel for the applicant has relied upon a
judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Ravish Singh Rana Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1055. For ready reference, paragraph
nos. 15, 16 and 17 of the aforesaid
judgement are extracted hereinbelow:-
“15. Moreover, in a long drawn live-in
relationship, occasions may arise where
parties in that relationship express their
desire or wish to formalize the same by a
seal of marriage, but that expression of
desire, or wish, by itself would not be
indicative of relationship being a
consequence of that expression of desire or
wish. A decade or two earlier, live-in
relationships might not have been common.
But now more and more women are
financially independent and have the
capacity to take conscious decision of
charting their life on their own terms. This
financial freedom, inter alia, has led to
proliferation of such live-in relationships.
Therefore, when a matter of this nature
comes to a court, it must not adopt a
pedantic approach rather the Court may,
based on the length of such relationship
and conduct of the parties, presume
implied consent of the parties to be in such
a relationship regardless of their desire or a
wish to convert it into a marital bond.
16. In that view of the matter, in our
considered view, the longdrawn relationship
of the appellant and the second respondent
including the circumstance of their living
together and cohabiting with each other,
that too, in a separate rented
accommodation, would give rise to a
presumption that their relationship was
based on a valid consent.
17. The settlement agreement, dated
19.11.2023, which is not disputed by the
second respondent, points out that the
parties had been in love. In such
circumstances, we are of the view that on
ground of refusal to marry, the appellant
cannot be subjected to prosecution for the
offence of rape. The other allegations of
assault and abuse have not been supported
by any material particulars. Even the
alleged sexual assault on 18.11.2023 is
negated by the recital in the settlement
agreement that parties love each other.”
6. Learned State Counsel, on the other
hand, would submit that as per the medical
report dated 25.04.2022, the victim was
pregnant of five weeks and three days and
DNA of the foetus matched with that of the
applicant.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
8. Be that as it may, even the learned
counsel for the applicant has not denied that
applicant and the victim were in physical
relationship. Thus, this Court finds some force
in submission made by learned counsel for
the applicants. In such circumstances,
allowing the criminal proceedings to continue
against the applicant would be an abuse of
the process of law. Therefore, this Court is of
the considered view that it is a fit case to
exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.
9. Accordingly, the present criminal
miscellaneous application filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
is allowed and the entire proceedings of
Special Session Trial No. 522 of 2022, State
Vs. Shubham Kumar Chauhan, pending in the
Court of learned District and Sessions Judge,
Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed, qua
the applicant.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
18.05.2026
Ujjwal
