Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Uttarakhand Single Bench of Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma has declined to quash the criminal proceedings against an accused facing charges under Sections 328, 376, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1) and 5(1) of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018. The Court held that the allegations made by the prosecutrix are serious and of a nature that cannot be brushed aside on the basis of a compromise. The Court directed the trial court to proceed with the matter on its merits and conclude the trial after thoroughly examining all aspects of the case.

Criminal proceedings in the present matter arose from FIR No. 25 of 2024, lodged at Police Station Mukhani, District Nainital. The complainant alleged that the petitioner introduced himself concealing his Muslim identity, and invited her to his residence during Janmashtami celebrations. Taking advantage of her fasting state, the petitioner allegedly administered sedative-laced milk and raped her while she was under the influence of the sedative. Further, he reportedly captured her nude photographs and used them to blackmail her into maintaining a relationship.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores FIR Over Alleged Gold Loan Fraud | Says Patna HC Erred In Treating Complaint As Malicious Without Trial Evidence

According to the FIR, the complainant stated that initially she submitted to the threats out of fear of defamation. Later, she was contacted by a woman who informed her that the petitioner was her husband. Upon confrontation, she confirmed that the petitioner was not a Hindu but a Muslim. These revelations prompted the complainant to challenge the petitioner’s identity and eventually file the police complaint.

A charge-sheet was filed on 01.04.2024, and the court issued a summoning order on 02.04.2024. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking quashing of the charge-sheet and trial proceedings, citing a compromise reached between him and the complainant.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the complainant was aware of his religious identity from the beginning and had frequently visited his residence. It was argued that the FIR was the result of a misunderstanding, now resolved amicably, and that the continuation of trial would be a futile exercise. An affidavit from the complainant affirming her awareness of the petitioner’s religion and the amicable nature of the settlement was filed in support of the petition.

Opposing the application, the learned State Counsel contended that the allegations involved serious and heinous offences, which affect not only the victim but society at large. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Daxaben v. State of Gujarat (2022) 16 SCC 117, it was argued that proceedings in such cases should not be quashed merely on the basis of a private settlement.

The State Counsel also pointed to the complainant’s examination-in-chief before the trial court, wherein she reiterated the original allegations. Her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. also supported the prosecution’s case. The complaint further included allegations of gang rape involving other accused whose investigation was still ongoing.

In the Section 164 statement, the complainant detailed how she was invited to the petitioner’s residence on Janmashtami, served sedative-laced milk, and subsequently raped by the petitioner and others. She mentioned that the petitioner showed her the video evidence the next morning and threatened to make them public if she did not continue the relationship.

During her testimony before the trial court, the prosecutrix confirmed her statement and added that the petitioner had lied about his identity, introduced himself as a Hindu with deceased parents, and forcibly made her wear a burkha. He had threatened to post her nude photos and videos online and kill her family if she did not convert to Islam.

Following these developments, the Court sought a report from the SSP, Nainital, directing protection for witnesses from any coercion or threats. The SSP's report indicated that the prosecutrix and other witnesses declined police protection and reported no threats from the accused.

Despite the prosecutrix later filing an affidavit in favour of the petitioner, the Court found it suspect as it followed her consistent testimony before the trial court affirming serious allegations.

The Court observed: "It is an established principle of criminal jurisprudence, reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court...that while the High Court possesses inherent power...to quash criminal proceedings in the interest of justice, such power must be exercised with caution and should not be invoked in cases involving heinous and serious offences, particularly offences against dignity of women such as rape."

Regarding the prosecutrix's affidavit, the Court recorded: "Although the prosecutrix has stated that she entered into a compromise with the petitioner voluntarily and has not sought police protection but the possibility of coercion, intimidation, or undue influence cannot be ruled out, particularly when she has given statement on oath before the trial court accusing the petitioner."

On the timing and authenticity of the compromise, the Court stated: "A compromise executed after such testimony raises serious doubts about its genuineness and undermines its legal sanctity."

Discussing the non-compoundable nature of the offence, the Court observed: "The offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is non-compoundable and cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement or compromise between the victim and the accused, especially where the facts reveal conduct that shocks the conscience of the Court and the society at large."

The Court stated: "Respondent no.2/complainant has made clear, detailed and serious allegations of rape, blackmailing, and religious misrepresentation. Moreover, the allegations also include gang rape, as evident from her statement Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, which remains uncontroverted at this stage of proceedings."

Also Read: Eviction From Public Premises Not Arbitrable | Bombay High Court Holds Lease Disputes Outside Scope Of Arbitration Clause And Directs Tribunal Cannot Confer Jurisdiction On Itself

The Court dismissed both the Compounding Application and the petition under Section 528 BNSS. It held that the application was "wholly misconceived and devoid of merit."

The Court directed: "The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter and conclude the trial on its merits, after thoroughly examining all aspects of the case."

It also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court for information.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Ms. Sadaf Gaur, learned counsel

For the Respondents: Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State; Ms. Reema Rana

Case Title: XXX vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: UHC:4727

Case Number: C528 No.263 of 2025

Bench: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma

[Read/Download order]