Woman Was A Minor When Pair First Connected; Uttarakhand HC Refuses To Quash FIR Alleging Sex On Promise Of Marriage

In brief

The question

Whether the FIR should be quashed in the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The court held

The Court held that no ground for interference with the FIR was made out and dismissed the criminal writ petition.

It also directed

Any pending application was disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner sought to quash FIR No. 0074 of 2026, registered at Police Station Banbasa under Sections 115(2), 304(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

¶ 1

The informant alleged that the petitioner had physical relations with her on the promise of marriage, assaulted her and took her mobile phone during an altercation, and later took her to a hotel. After the petitioner refused to marry her, she allegedly consumed rat poison.

¶ 2

The petitioner claimed the allegations were fabricated, the relationship consensual, and the complaint motivated by a demand for money.

¶ 3

The State relied on verified hotel-register entries and information that the petitioner had married another woman before a later hotel visit with the informant.

¶ 4

The Court recorded that the informant was born on 2 September 2005 and was a minor when she first came into contact with the petitioner in January 2022.

¶ 5

02Issues

i.Whether the FIR should be quashed in the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶ 1, 6

ii.Whether the petitioner’s claims of consensual relations, false implication and official commitments justified interference with the investigation at that stage.

¶ 3, 5–6

03Law Applied

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 115(2), 304(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

¶ 1

It applied the principle that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised to interrupt an investigation where the allegations and material disclose a serious case warranting investigation; disputed factual defences and the evidentiary value of collected material are matters for investigation.

¶ 5–6

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115 Section 304 Section 351

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 3 Section 4

04Reasoning

The allegations concerned physical relations allegedly obtained on a promise of marriage, and the informant’s recorded date of birth meant she was a minor when she first came into contact with the petitioner.

¶ 5

The verified hotel-register entries and the State’s information that the petitioner had married another woman before a subsequent hotel visit lent support to the need for investigation.

¶ 4–5

The petitioner’s assertions about consent, false implication and ITBP duties raised disputed questions of fact that the Court declined to determine in the writ petition.

¶ 3, 5

In those circumstances, the Court found no exceptional ground to halt the investigation.

¶ 6