PRAMOD SINGH vs SATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
No Date
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
with Signatures

C-482 No. 503 of 2020
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Counsel,
assisted by Ms. Amreen Bano, learned counsel
for the applicant.
2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, learned counsel
for respondent no. 3/complainant.
4. The present criminal misc. application is
filed with a prayer to quash and set-aside the
chargesheet, summoning order as well as the
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1215 of
2020, State Vs. Pramod Singh, under Sections
376, 506 and 120-B of IPC, pending in the court
of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.
5. In this case, an FIR was lodged on
25.09.2018, by respondent no. 3, wherein, it
was alleged that applicant and respondent no. 3
were in love relationship for last more than four
years and on pretext of marriage, she was
compelled to make physical relations with the
applicant. She further submitted that even
compromise was entered into between them
with the settlement that both of them would
marry each other, but, despite this fact, the
applicant did not honour the terms and
conditions of the compromise.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant
would argue that at the time of the alleged
incident, the age of respondent no.
3/complainant was 20 years. Applicant and the
th
complainant, both were studying in class 12
and were major. It is further submitted that

applicant did wanted to marry the complainant
and in fact compromise was also reduced in
writing on 05.06.2018, whereby, it was agreed
that both of them would marry each other, but,
somehow, due to misunderstanding, the
marriage between them could not be
solemnized. On this basis, it is submitted that it
is not a case in which from the initial stage of
the relationship, there was intention on the part
of the applicant not to marry the complainant.
7. To support his case, learned Senior
Counsel for the applicant has relied upon a
judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Pramod Kumar Navratna Vs. State
of Chattisgarh and Others, (Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. 4452 of 2025). For ready
reference, paragraph Nos. 22 and 25 of the
aforesaid judgment are extracted hereinbelow:-
“22. The Courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in identifying the genuine cases filed
under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC by identifying the
essential ingredients to constitute the said offence
i.e. there should be a promise of marriage made by
the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for
sexual relations and without having any intent of
fulfilling said promise from the very beginning, and
that such false promise of marriage had a direct
bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for
sexual relations. Such genuine cases that deserve
prosecution of the accused must be clearly
demarcated from the litigation that arises from the
cases of consensual relationships between
consenting adults going acrimonious on account of
dispute and disagreement or a future change of
mind. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law,
the respondent No.1-State and the complainant-
respondent No.3 has failed to place any material on
record to show how the accused-appellant on the
subsequent meetings managed to repeatedly coax
and dupe the complainant-respondent No.3 into
having physical relations with him on the false
pretext of marriage considering the fact that within
initial meetings, both parties were aware about the
marital status of the victim and therefore it cannot
be, by any stretch imagination said that the consent
of the complainant-respondent No.3 has been
vitiated or obtained on fraud and misrepresentation
made by the accused-appellant.
25. At this juncture, it is important to place reliance
upon the observations in Prashant vs. State of NCT

of Delhi, (2025) 5 SCC 764, wherein this Court
speaking through one of us (Nagarathna, J.)
observed that a mere break-up of a relationship
between a consenting couple cannot result in the
initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a
consensual relationship between the parties at the
initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality
when the said relationship does not fructify into a
marriage. Furthermore, this Court in Samadhan vs.
State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528
through one of us (Nagarathna, J.) observed that
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 soured 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 criminal justice machinery in this regard is a
matter of profound concern for the judiciary already
facing a heavy load and calls for condemnation.”
8. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand,
vehemently opposed the present criminal misc.
application.
9. Bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that
both applicant and the victim were in love
relations for the last more than four years and
both were major and if somehow the marriage
could not be solemnized between them, it could
not be given a criminal colour.
10. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble
Apex Court in the aforesaid case, this Court has
no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has
failed to make out any offence punishable under
Section 376 IPC against the applicant.
11. 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.
12. Accordingly, the present criminal

miscellaneous application filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is
allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal
Case No. 1215 of 2020, State Vs. Pramod
Singh, under Sections 376, 506 and 120-B of
IPC, pending in the court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District
Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed, qua
the applicant.

(Alok Mahra J.)
27.04.2026

Ujjwal