Uttarakhand High Court Refuses To Quash Rape Case | Allegations Disclose Cognisable Offence Under Section 376 IPC And Trial Has Already Commenced
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Uttarakhand Single Bench of Justice Ashish Naithani has dismissed a plea seeking quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) and criminal proceedings under Sections 376 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court held that the matter involves contested facts and evidentiary issues that must be examined at trial and observed that “no exceptional circumstance or glaring illegality is made out to justify interference under the limited jurisdiction conferred by Section 482 CrPC.” The application filed under Section 482 CrPC was accordingly dismissed.
The case pertains to an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No. 109 of 2021 registered at Police Station Kathgodam, District Nainital. The FIR invoked Sections 376 and 504 IPC and was lodged by a woman who alleged sexual exploitation under a false promise of marriage, followed by verbal abuse.
Both the applicant and the complainant were working as Assistant Professors at an academic institution in Dehradun, having joined in 2017. Over time, a personal relationship developed, culminating in a public marriage proposal in September 2019. Both families reportedly engaged in discussions to formalise the alliance.
In April 2021, the applicant allegedly discovered that the complainant had a prior marriage and had divorced only in July 2020. He also came across reports involving the complainant’s brother in a grave criminal case. Concerned about trust and family background, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Circle Officer in January 2021, expressing his intention to withdraw from the proposed marriage.
According to the complainant, she remained unaware of this development and continued to be in an intimate relationship with the applicant until late April 2021, under the continued assurance of marriage. The FIR was lodged on 02.05.2021, a day after the applicant allegedly declared his unwillingness to proceed with the marriage.
Following the FIR, the applicant was arrested. His bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court but was allowed by the High Court on 08.06.2021. The investigating officer filed a chargesheet on 14.06.2021, leading to cognisance by the Magistrate and initiation of criminal proceedings.
Later, allegations of post-bail misconduct arose, including claims of inappropriate digital communication and attempts to contact the complainant within court premises. The police issued summons, and the applicant verbally assured cessation of such behaviour.
The application under Section 482 CrPC was filed to quash the proceedings, asserting that the allegations stemmed from a deteriorated personal relationship and did not establish any criminal offence. The applicant maintained that the relationship was consensual and that the decision to withdraw from marriage was made in good faith based on new information.
The complainant, in multiple affidavits, claimed that her consent to the relationship was based on the promise of marriage, which the applicant had no intention to fulfil. She alleged a pattern of deception, supported by medical and digital records, and claimed that the physical relationship continued even after the applicant’s alleged internal withdrawal.
The Court recorded, “The factual context in which the FIR has been lodged is important. The parties were colleagues… and engaged in a personal and physically intimate relationship over a prolonged period beginning in 2017.”
Referring to the applicant’s police complaint dated 25.01.2021, the Court observed, “it is undisputed that no such communication was ever conveyed to the respondent. On the contrary, physical proximity and emotional intimacy continued until the end of April 2021.”
In assessing the nature of consent, the Court noted, “The continuation of emotional and physical intimacy thereafter, corroborated by documents such as hotel records and medical reports, strongly suggests that the respondent remained under the impression that the promise of marriage still subsisted.”
On the issue of quashing, the Court stated, “The jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not to be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution where allegations prima facie disclose the commission of an offence.” Further, “The law is equally settled that the power to quash a First Information Report must be invoked sparingly.”
Regarding post-bail conduct, the Court observed, “His conduct goes beyond a mere social media lapse; it reflects disregard for legal restraints and contributes to an atmosphere of intimidation for the victim.”
On the applicability of judgments cited by the applicant, the Court held, “The argument that a failed relationship should not be criminalised is, in principle, correct. However, where one party enters or sustains an intimate relationship under a promise that was never intended to be honoured… the criminal law cannot remain indifferent.”
Rejecting the prayer for quashing, the Court recorded, “At this juncture, this Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry or evaluate the probative value of evidence. Nonetheless, a prima facie case must be assessed.”
“The FIR in question discloses the commission of a cognisable, non-compoundable offence under Section 376 IPC. The allegations… cannot be said to be absurd, inherently improbable, or wholly lacking in substance,” the Court held.
The Court also stated: “The issues raised by the petitioner are intricately linked to factual determinations that are best addressed during the trial process.” Referring to the precedent in CBI v. Aryan Singh, the Court cited: “As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial.”
The High Court declined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and dismissed the application seeking quashing of FIR No. 109 of 2021 and the consequential criminal proceedings. The Court held that the allegations made in the FIR, when read in their entirety, disclosed the commission of a cognisable and non-compoundable offence, and therefore did not warrant pre-trial interference.
The Court stated: “The allegations, when read as a whole, disclose the commission of a cognisable and non-compoundable offence under Section 376 IPC.” It recorded that the issues raised by the applicant involved factual disputes and matters of evidence that could not be adjudicated at the current stage of proceedings. The Court observed: “The case involves disputed questions of fact and evidentiary matters that cannot be adjudicated at the pre-trial stage.”
It further noted that the trial had already commenced and was at an advanced stage, making the invocation of Section 482 CrPC inappropriate. The judgment recorded: “The trial has already commenced, and no exceptional circumstance or glaring illegality is made out to justify interference under the limited jurisdiction conferred by Section 482 CrPC.”
The Court clarified that the limited scope of Section 482 CrPC must not be used to halt a prosecution that is otherwise legally maintainable and proceeding in accordance with law. As such, the Hon’ble Court declined to interject in the matter.
“Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Devanshi Joshi, Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, learned counsels
For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand;
Case Title: XXXXX v. State of Uttarakhand & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025:UHC:3748
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Application No. 1115 of 2021
Bench: Justice Ashish Naithani
[Read/Download order]
