Virendra Singh Rana vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2026:UHC:4271
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
C482 No.1719 of 2016

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.


Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath,
Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, A.G.A. for the
State of Uttarakhand.

2. Present C-528 application is filed
with the prayer to set-aside/quash the
charge sheet dated 30.04.2014,
summoning order dated 30.09.2014 and
the entire proceedings of Criminal Case
No.2456 of 2014, pending in the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar,
District Dehradun.

3. Respondent no.2 initially submitted
a complaint dated 14.08.2013 against
the applicant alleging therein that both
the applicant and respondent no.2 came
into contact with each other in the year
2010 and developed friendly relations.
Since the applicant was pursuing his
B.Tech. course, he allegedly assured
respondent no.2 that after completion of
his studies he would marry her. It is
further alleged that the applicant also
made assurances of marriage before a
temple, thereby inducing respondent
no.2 to repose faith in him. According to
the allegations, on 10.10.2010, the
applicant took respondent no.2 to a
hotel, administered an intoxicating
substance in her cold drink and
thereafter committed rape upon her in
the hotel room. It is further alleged that
thereafter respondent no.2 went to
reside at her brother’s place at Palia,

2026:UHC:4271
Uttar Pradesh, however, the applicant
remained in continuous contact with her.
Upon her return to Vikas Nagar, till
06.06.2013, the applicant allegedly
continued physical relations with
respondent no.2 on the pretext of
marriage. Subsequently, when
respondent no.2 and her family members
requested the applicant to solemnize
marriage, he allegedly refused. Since no
action was taken on the aforesaid
complaint, respondent no.2 lodged the
F.I.R. on 22.09.2013. After investigation,
the Investigating Officer submitted
charge-sheet against the applicant, upon
which learned Magistrate took
cognizance and summoned the applicant
to face trial. Hence, the present
application.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the applicant submits that the
impugned summoning order has been
passed mechanically and without due
application of judicial mind, inasmuch as,
learned Magistrate has failed to record
any reasons while taking cognizance and
issuing summons, rendering the order
wholly non-speaking in nature. It is
further submitted that the applicant has
falsely been implicated in the present
case. Learned counsel contends that
there are material contradictions and
improvements in the version of
respondent no.2, as the allegation
regarding the alleged incident of rape
committed in the hotel on 10.10.2010
does not find place in the F.I.R. and
instead the date of incident is mentioned
as 17.02.2013 and material
discrepancies exist with regard to the
dates of the alleged occurrence. It is
further submitted that the investigation
suffers from serious infirmities and

2026:UHC:4271
lapses. No independent witness
pertaining to the alleged incident in the
hotel has been cited in the charge-sheet.
Neither the hotel manager nor any hotel
staff, including the waiter, has been
examined by the Investigating Officer.
No CCTV footage of the hotel was
collected, nor was the hotel register
seized or verified to establish the
presence of either the applicant or
respondent no.2 in the hotel on the
alleged date of occurrence. It is also
contended that no Call Detail Records
(CDRs) pertaining to the mobile numbers
referred to in the F.I.R. were collected or
filed along with the charge-sheet so as to
substantiate the allegation of continuous
contact between the parties.

5. Learned Senior Counsel further
submits that the medical evidence also
does not support the prosecution case,
inasmuch as, the doctor concerned has
opined that no definite opinion regarding
sexual intercourse could be given.
Moreover, no external or internal injury
was found on the person of respondent
no.2 during medical examination. On the
strength of the aforesaid submissions, it
is argued that the entire prosecution
case is unsupported by cogent or reliable
evidence and continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the applicant would
amount to abuse of the process of law.

6. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. At the
outset, it is evident that the relationship
between the applicant and respondent
no.2, as reflected from the F.I.R. itself,
was consensual in nature and continued
over a substantial period from 2010 to
2013. The prosecution version discloses
that the parties remained in continuous

2026:UHC:4271
contact and maintained physical relations
for years together. In such
circumstances, no prima facie material is
available on record to demonstrate that
at the inception itself the applicant had
any dishonest intention or that the
alleged promise of marriage was false
from the very beginning so as to attract
the ingredients of Section 376 I.P.C. on
the basis of misconception of fact. This
Court further notes that there are
significant improvements and
contradictions in the prosecution story.
The allegation regarding the alleged
incident of rape in a hotel on 10.10.2010
does not find place in the F.I.R. and
instead the date of incident is mentioned
as 17.02.2013. The investigation also
suffers from material omissions,
inasmuch as, no independent witness
from the alleged place of occurrence has
been examined. Neither hotel records,
CCTV footage, nor visitor registers have
been collected to corroborate the
presence of the parties at the alleged
time of incident. Similarly, Call Detail
Records, which could have substantiated
continuous contact between the parties,
have not been brought on record. The
medical evidence also does not support
the prosecution case, as the doctor has
not given any definite opinion regarding
sexual assault and no external or internal
injuries were found on the person of
respondent no.2.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of
Maharashtra & another, reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1230, has held that a
consensual relationship subsequently
turning sour, or the parties drifting apart,
cannot by itself furnish a ground for
setting the criminal law in motion. The

2026:UHC:4271
Court observed that such prosecutions
not only unnecessarily burden the
criminal justice system, but also
seriously tarnish the reputation and
dignity of an individual accused of a
grave offence like one under Section 376
I.P.C. Hon’ble Supreme Court has
repeatedly cautioned against the misuse
of such provisions and has categorically
held that every breach of a promise to
marry cannot ipso facto be construed as
a false promise so as to attract
prosecution for the offence punishable
under Section 376 I.P.C.
8. In light of the settled position of law
that consensual relationships turning
sour cannot be mechanically converted
into criminal prosecution for rape, and
considering the principle laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioning
against misuse of criminal process, this
Court is of the view that the prosecution
lacks foundational material.
9. Accordingly, the criminal misc.
application is allowed and the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.2456 of
2014, pending in the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, District
Dehradun, are hereby quashed.



(Alok Mahra, J.)
29.05.2026
Arpan




ARPAN
JAISWAL
Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445
e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C51
09CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN
JAISWAL
Date: 2026.05.29 16:47:53 +05'30'