SURAJ KUMAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Court
Uttarakhand High Court

UKHC010195722026

2026:UHC:10270


HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Criminal No. 2238 of 2026
th
5 November, 2026

Suraj Kumar
--Petitioner

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand and others
--Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Priya Mewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned B.H. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This writ petition has been filed by petitioner
seeking a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the FIR No.0074 of 2026 dated 19.09.2026
under Sections 115(2), 304(2), 351(2) of BNS and
Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act registered at P.S.
Banbasa, District Champawat.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner and the informant came into contact through
Instagram on 13.01.2022 and thereafter developed
communication with each other. As per the FIR, the
petitioner allegedly established physical relations with
the informant on several occasions on the promise of
marriage. It is further alleged that on 03.09.2026, an
altercation took place involving the informant, the
petitioner and his mother, during which the informant
was assaulted and her mobile phone was snatched.
Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly took the informant to
a hotel at Tanakpur, where they again established
physical relations. Upon the petitioner's subsequent
1

UKHC010195722026

2026:UHC:10270

refusal to marry her, the informant allegedly consumed
rat poison and was admitted to hospital. On the basis of
the complaint lodged by her, FIR No. 0074 of 2026, dated
19.09.2026, came to be registered at Police Station
Banbasa, District Champawat, under the aforesaid penal
provisions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the impugned FIR has been lodged on false and
fabricated allegations, with the ulterior motive of
pressurising the petitioner into marrying the informant.
It was contended that the petitioner was undergoing
training and thereafter discharging his duties in the
Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), and the allegations
regarding repeated physical relations are inconsistent
with his official commitments. It was further submitted
that the informant was a major at the time of the alleged
incidents and that the relationship between the parties
was consensual. Learned counsel also alleged that the
informant and her family members were demanding
money from the petitioner and, upon his refusal, the
present criminal proceedings were initiated to harass
him. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned FIR be
quashed.
4. Learned State Counsel on the other hand
submitted that the investigation has revealed material
circumstances lending support to the prosecution case.
Reference was made to the verification report dated
02.11.2026, wherein entries in the visitors' registers of
Bohra Ji Hotel, Banbasa, dated 13.02.2026, and Kumar
Hotel, Tanakpur, dated 03.09.2026, have been verified in
the name of the petitioner. It was further pointed out that
2

UKHC010195722026

2026:UHC:10270

the petitioner had married one Jyoti on 07.02.2026 and,
therefore, was already married at the time of his
subsequent visit to Kumar Hotel with the informant. The
instructions supplied by learned State Counsel are taken
on record. Learned State Counsel submitted that these
circumstances, coupled with the allegations in the FIR,
disclose a serious case warranting investigation and that
the proceedings ought not to be interdicted at this stage.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and upon perusal of the material available on record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that no ground for
interference with the impugned FIR is made out. The
allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in
nature and relate to the alleged establishment of physical
relations with the informant on the promise of marriage.
It is relevant to note that the informant was born on
02.09.2005 and was a minor when she allegedly came
into contact with the petitioner in January 2022.
Further, the verification report dated 02.11.2026 records
entries in the petitioner's name in the hotel registers on
13.02.2026 and 03.09.2026. It also records that the
petitioner had married another woman on 07.02.2026,
prior to his subsequent visit with the informant. The
aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the allegations in
the FIR, warrant a proper investigation. The defence
raised by the petitioner, including his claim of being
occupied with official duties in the ITBP and the
assertion that the relationship was consensual, involves
disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in
detail in the present proceedings. The veracity of the
allegations and the evidentiary value of the material
collected are matters for investigation.
3

UKHC010195722026

2026:UHC:10270

6. In view of the nature of the allegations and the
material available on record, this Court finds no
exceptional ground warranting exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Interference with the investigation
at this stage would, therefore, be unwarranted.
7. The criminal writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.



( Pankaj Purohit, J .)
04.11.2026
Rdang
RAJEEV
DANG
Digitally signed by RAJEEV DANG
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=963da6fc6df8dbb91944e0c58b9e
d259ec3d800f419a1199f15a3961c8ca2957,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=63F6E663A1DD44892EED6B
81F043D778B37D74D2DB7200F2DABC7AB
CC1CA358D, cn=RAJEEV DANG
Date: 2026.11.05 20:01:08 +05'30'
4