ATUL FRANCS ZACHARIAH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1877 of 2022
nd
02 April, 2026


Atul Francis Zachariah -Applicant


Versus

State of Uttarakhand
And Another -Respondents

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Presence:-
Ms. Devika Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned A.G.A. for the State.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
The present Criminal Misc. Application under section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing and
setting-aside the chargesheet dated 14.07.2022,
cognizance/summoning order dated 19.07.2022 as well as the
entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 11 of 2022, State Vs.
Atul Francis Zachariah, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342
and 376 of IPC, pending in the Court of learned District and
Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal.
2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as hereunder:-
That in the month of February, 2022, the applicant and
the complainant attended Yoga Classes at Rishikesh. After the
completion of the Yoga Camp, the applicant and the
complainant both lived in a hotel at Rishikesh and thereafter

2
they shifted to a Guest House namely Happy Home Stay and
they lived together there since 09.04.2022.
Thereafter, an FIR was lodged by the complainant on
22.05.2022 at Police Station Muni Ki Reti being FIR No. 0034
of 2022 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 and 376 of IPC.
The complainant have alleged in the FIR that the applicant
brutally assaulted and beat the complainant on 21.05.2022 at
Happy Home Stay and also abused her verbally and when she
tried to scream, he closed the window of the room and put his
hand on her mouth and tried to choke her. Thereafter, he
offered her poha, which was ordered and when she refused, he
threw the poha on the floor and when she was crying, he tried
to remove her clothes and thereafter he asked her to perform
sex and when she refused, he sexually assaulted her. After the
sexual act, the applicant felt asleep and the complainant also
slept by his side and when she walk up in the evening, she
packed her luggage and went downstairs and thereafter, she
called some friends and left the room.
On the next day evening, she had a flight to Bombay,
but, she did not board the flight and went to the Police Station
and lodged the FIR. Statement of the complainant was
recorded under Sections 161 and Section 164 of Cr.P.C. In her
statement, she has reiterated the averments made in the FIR.
She has also submitted that the applicant and the
complainant became good friends in a short term and they

3
started living together as boyfriend and girlfriend and were
living as such in a common room for last more than two
months. She has further stated in her statement under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as follows: - “I don’t want to press
charges against him now. I think yesterday when I saw him he
has felt remorse for this day, I don’t want to press charges
against him and want to forgive him.”
Thereafter, chargesheet was filed against the applicant
under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 and 376 of IPC.
Complainant was examined as PW1 and in her statement also,
she has reiterated the facts, which were earlier stated by her
in her statements under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and
again she has reiterated the fact as follows: - “I don’t want to
press charges against him now. I think yesterday when I saw
him he has felt remorse for this day, I don’t want to press
charges against him and want to forgive him.”
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the
complainant have lodged the FIR in a fit rage and anger as
some altercation took place between them regarding some
trivial issue in relation to the booking of the flight. Learned
counsel has further submitted that both the applicant and the
complainant became good friends when they attended Yoga
Classes and after completion of the Yoga Classes Course, they
were living together for last more than two months in a
common single room. In the statement given by the

4
complainant, she has admitted the fact that physical relations
were established between the complainant and the applicant
five-six times earlier also before the said incident.
4. Learned counsel has further relied upon the medical
report of the complainant. Medical report does not support the
prosecution story as no injury was found on the head or on
the face of the complainant and neither any sign of forced
sexual intercourse was present. Therefore, the charges of rape
are not proved against the applicant. It is further submitted
that though the incident happened in the afternoon of
21.05.2022, FIR was lodged after a delay of more than 28
hours while the Police Station was at Muni Ki Reti, which is
just 200 meters away from the place of incident. In her
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the
complainant have stated that the applicant was not brutal
during the sexual act and took care that the complainant does
not get hurt and the complainant even cried on applicant’s
gesture. This shows that this sexual act was a consensual act,
which does not fall under the ambit of Section 376 of IPC.
5. In support of her statement, learned counsel for the
applicant has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. The State
of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 327. Paragraph 20 of the
aforesaid judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-

5
“20. Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual
sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether
the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had
mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only
to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating or
deception. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a
promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the accused has not
made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix
to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual
intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused and
not solely on account of the misconception created by accused, or
where an accused, on account of circumstances which he could
not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to
marry her despite having every intention to do. Such cases must be
treated differently. If the complainant had any mala fide intention
and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The
acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the
parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 of the
IPC.”
6. This fact was also reiterated in the case of Uday Vs. State
of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46, wherein, Hon’ble Apex Court
has held that if between lovers’ consensual physical
relationship is present, physical relationship between them
cannot constitute rape.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon a
judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Samadhan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2528. Paragraph 29 of the aforesaid judgment is
extracted hereinbelow:-
“29. This Court has, on numerous occasions, taken note of the
disquieting tendency wherein failed or broken relationships are
given the colour of criminality. The offence of rape, being of the
gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists
genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. To
convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only
trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the
accused indelible stigma and grave injustice. Such instances
transcend the realm of mere personal discord. The misuse of the

6
criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound
concern and calls for condemnation."
8. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has
vehemently opposed the present criminal misc. application.
9. Notices were also issued to the complainant, which were
served upon her, but, despite service, no one has put in
appearance on her behalf.
10. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned
counsel for the State.
11. From the above facts, it is apparently clear that the
applicant and the complainant were in live-in relationship as
boyfriend and girlfriend in a single rented room and it is an
admitted case that before incident which happened on
21.05.2022, they had made physical relationship five-six times
earlier also.
12. It is also pertinent to mention here that at the time of
incident, applicant was 26 years of age while complainant was
33 years of age. As such, both of them were mature enough
and were possessed of sufficient understanding, maturity, and
discernment to comprehend the nature and consequences of
their actions, and that complainant had voluntarily joined the
company of the applicant.

7
13. An educated and independent adult, upon entering into a
consensual relationship, must also recognise that the law
cannot be invoked to criminalize the mere failure of a
relationship. The dissolution of a relationship, by itself, does
not give rise to criminal liability. Such matters must be
approached with sensitivity, restraint, and due respect for the
autonomy and choices of both individuals involved.
14. It is also well settled by a catena of decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts that, in
cases involving young offenders and consensual relationships
between adolescents, a liberal approach may be warranted so
as to prevent the regressive and adverse influences of
prolonged incarceration and to further the principle of best
interest of both the parties involved.
15. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid cases, this Court has no hesitation in holding that
the prosecution has failed to make out any offence punishable
under Section 376 of IPC against the applicant. 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.

8
16. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous
application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is allowed and the entire proceedings of
Session Trial No. 11 of 2022, State Vs. Atul Francis Zachariah,
under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 and 376 of IPC, pending in
the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Tehri
Garhwal, is hereby quashed, qua the applicant.

(Alok Mahra, J.)
21.04.2026
Ujjwal