PREETAM SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY HOME, SECRETARIAT DEHRADUN

2026:UHC:3683
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
C482/773/2023


Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Prabhat Bohra, learned counsel
for the applicant.
2. Mr. Pratiroop Pande, learned A.G.A.
along with Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
3. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
seeking quashing of the chargesheet,
cognizance/summoning order dated
19.09.2022, as well as the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6496 of
2022 pending before the Court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun,
arising out of offences punishable under
Section 376 I.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that, as per the
prosecution case itself, matrimonial talks
were going on between the families of the
applicant and respondent no.2/victim
and the marriage between them was
under active consideration. It is alleged
in the F.I.R. that after completing her
M.A., respondent no.2 came to Dehradun
for coaching classes and during that
period, she accompanied the applicant to
Haridwar and Rishikesh, where physical
relations were established between them
on the assurance that they would shortly
marry. It is further alleged that physical
relations continued on several occasions,
however, subsequently the applicant
informed respondent no.2 that his

2026:UHC:3683
marriage had been fixed with another girl
and he would not be able to marry her,
on which, after completion of
investigation, the chargsheet has been
filed and learned trial court took
cognizance against the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the applicant has
falsely been implicated and the
allegations levelled in the F.I.R., even if
taken at their face value, do not
constitute the offence alleged. He would
submit that the relationship between the
parties was purely consensual and
developed in the backdrop of a proposed
marriage which was being considered by
both families. It is contended that there
was no false promise or fraudulent
intention on the part of the applicant
from the very inception and the marriage
could not materialize only due to
subsequent family circumstances and
differences between the parties.
6. He would further submit that the
factum of marriage talks between the
families is specifically reflected from the
contents of the F.I.R. itself and,
therefore, it cannot be inferred that the
consent of respondent no.2 was obtained
under any misconception of fact within
the meaning of Section 90 I.P.C. Learned
counsel would submit that the essential
ingredient for constituting an offence
under Section 376 I.P.C., namely,
absence of free consent, is wholly lacking
in the present matter.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that even after
registration of the F.I.R., respondent
no.2 and the applicant amicably resolved

2026:UHC:3683
their dispute and jointly approached this
Court by filing a writ petition along with
a compounding application. In the said
application, it was specifically averred
that both parties had entered into a
physical relationship out of their own
free will and consent and, owing to
unavoidable circumstances, their
relationship could not culminate into
marriage. Though the Coordinate Bench
declined to quash the proceedings on the
basis of compromise, the affidavit filed by
respondent no.2 clearly demonstrates
that the relationship between the parties
was consensual in nature and there was
no element of coercion attributable to the
applicant.
8. Learned counsel would further
submit that during the course of
investigation, the applicant was granted
anticipatory bail by this Court vide order
dated 05.08.2022 after considering the
overall facts and circumstances of the
case. It is also contended that the
dispute between the parties is essentially
personal in nature arising out of a failed
relationship and continuation of criminal
proceedings would amount to abuse of
the process of law.
9. Per contra, learned State counsel
would vehemently oppose the
submissions advanced on behalf of the
applicant and would submit that the
allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and the
material collected during investigation
disclose commission of cognizable
offences and, therefore, the proceedings
ought not to be quashed in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C.

2026:UHC:3683
10. This Court has considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
11. From the contents of the F.I.R. as
well as the material collected during
investigation, it transpires that the
relationship between the applicant and
respondent no.2 emanated from a pre-
existing matrimonial understanding
between their families and continued for
a considerable period of time. The
allegations themselves reveal that both
parties were in a consensual relationship
and the physical relations were
established during the subsistence of
such relationship. There is nothing on
record to prima facie indicate that from
the inception the applicant never
intended to marry respondent no.2 or
that the promise of marriage was a mere
device to obtain consent for physical
relations.
12. It is settled principle of law that
every breach of promise to marry would
not amount to rape unless it is
established that the promise was false
from the very beginning and was made
only with the intention to deceive the
victim. Where parties are in a consensual
relationship and the marriage could not
materialize due to subsequent
circumstances, criminal prosecution
under Section 376 I.P.C. would not
ordinarily be sustainable.
13. In the present case, the admitted
involvement of both families in
matrimonial negotiations, the
consensual nature of the relationship,
and the subsequent affidavit filed by

2026:UHC:3683
respondent no.2 acknowledging that the
relationship was voluntary, clearly
indicate absence of fraudulent or
dishonest intention on the part of the
applicant at the inception of the
relationship. Thus, the essential
ingredients constituting an offence under
Section 376 I.P.C. are not made out
against the applicant.
14. This Court is of the considered
opinion that continuation of the
impugned criminal proceedings would
amount to abuse of the process of the
Court and no useful purpose would be
served in permitting the same to
continue.
15. Accordingly, the present application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The chargesheet, cognizance/
summoning order dated 19.09.2022, as
well as the entire proceedings of Criminal
Case No. 6496 of 2022 pending before
the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dehradun, are hereby
quashed.
16. Pending applications, if any, shall
also stand disposed of accordingly.


Digitally signed by MAMTA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46
f244f3e584af1449e430ef90
0bf09a6d67ebbd64267132
9b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f
1d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca
8b66dd26690a191648ab5d
8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA
RANI
Date: 2026.05.18 11:40:32
+05'30'
MA
MTA
RANI
(Alok Mahra, J.)

12.05.2026
Mamta