UKHC010024842023

2026:UHC:6669

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No.296 of 2023

Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Chauhan …. Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another ……… Respondent s

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Present:-

Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned AGA for the State.

Mr. Shariq Khurshid, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)

By means of the present criminal

miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has sought

quashing of the cognizance and summoning order dated

13.12.2022, the charge-sheet dated 28.11.2022, as well

as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 15

of 2022, titled "State Versus Pankaj Kumar," under

Sections 376, 504, and 506 of the I.P.C. and Section

3(2)(5)(a) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station

Ramnagar, District Nainital, passed by the Court of the

learned District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST

Act), Nainital, arising out of F.I.R. No. 183 of 2022 dated

25.05.2022 under Sections 376, 504, and 506 of the

UKHC010024842023

2026:UHC:6669

2

I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, Police

Station Ramnagar, District Nainital.

2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of the

present criminal miscellaneous application are as follows:

i. F.I.R. dated 25.05.2022 was lodged as F.I.R.

No. 183 of 2022 under Sections 376, 504, and

506 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the

SC/ST Act, 1989, at Police Station Ramnagar,

District Nainital, by respondent No. 2, with the

allegations that the applicant and respondent

No. 2 became friends through Facebook in

2018, exchanged mobile numbers, and started

talking on WhatsApp. In December 2018, the

applicant called her to Kashipur to meet him.

After having a conversation, both of them

returned to their respective homes, and

thereafter also met a number of times.

ii. On the pretext of going out together, in

December 2018, the applicant called her to

Ramnagar, and after they became tired, the

applicant took her to a hotel and took her

photographs. When she tried to snatch the

phone, the applicant threatened her that if she

UKHC010024842023

2026:UHC:6669

3

raised any hue and cry, he would make the

photographs viral on social media. He further

told her that if she consented to his wishes, he

would marry her. Thereafter, she got afraid

and did not disclose the incident to anyone.

Again, in August 2019, the applicant took her

to Garjia Mata Temple and thereafter to a

hotel. After filling her maang with sindoor, he

told her that from that day she is his wife and

assured her that he would soon visit her home

for marriage talks, but that he first wanted his

sister to get married. The applicant's sister got

married on 09.12.2020. When she requested

him to marry her, he became angry, abused

her with caste-related words, and also

threatened her. After this incident, respondent

No. 2 visited the applicant's mother on

08.02.2021, but the applicant's mother pushed

her out of the house and also abused her.

iii. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the

applicant established physical relations with

her on many occasions. At the end of the

F.I.R., it is stated that she was mentally

UKHC010024842023

2026:UHC:6669

4

tortured and that, on the false pretext of

marriage, physical relations were established

with her against her wishes. Therefore, she

prayed for strict legal action.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R., an

investigation was conducted, culminating in the filing of

the charge-sheet on 28.11.2022. On the basis of the said

charge-sheet, the court concerned took cognizance and

passed the summoning order dated 13.12.2022 against

the applicant.

4. Assailing the cognizance and summoning order

dated 13.12.2022, the charge -sheet dated 28.11.2022,

and the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.

15 of 2022, learned counsel for the applicant submits

that, in the narration of the events, there is no allegation

in the FIR of physical relations having been entered into

under the false pretext of marriage. He submits that

respondent No. 2/victim is a major and was a consenting

adult. She admittedly visited hotels on a number of

occasions of her own free will. The initial promise to

marry does not appear to have been false, and the

marriage could not be solemnized due to intervening

circumstances. The consent given by the victim does not

appear to have been obtained under a misconception of

UKHC010024842023

2026:UHC:6669

5

fact. Admittedly, she travelled to different places and

visited hotels of her own free will. Though the FIR

contains allegations that the applicant clicked her

photographs and threatened to make them viral, during

the investigation, the alleged photographs were neither

found nor is there any mention thereof in the charge-

sheet.

5. He further submits that, though there are

allegations that she was forced to enter into physical

relations, even thereafter she continued to visit the

applicant from time to time and, in fact, also contacted

the applicant's mother for the purpose of marriage. It is

only at the fag end of the FIR that a passing reference

has been made to physical relations having been

established on the false pretext of marriage, apparently to

bring the case within that category. He also refers to the

statements of the victim/respondent No. 2 and submits

that she has stated that the applicant forced himself

upon her in December 2018 in a hotel at Ramnagar. In

her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she further

stated that in February 2019, she again went to a hotel

with the applicant, where he forced himself upon her.

Thereafter, there was a third visit by both of them to a

hotel after 15–20 days.

UKHC010024842023

2026:UHC:6669

6

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that

the averments made in the statements under Section 164

Cr.P.C. are at variance with the version contained in the

FIR. He further submits that, although the friendship

between the applicant and respondent No. 2 commenced

in the year 2018, the FIR came to be lodged only in the

year 2022. Hence, there appears to have been a long -

standing relationship between the two of them.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant, in support

of his contentions, has relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jothiragawan vs.

State, Rep. By The Inspector of Police and another,

reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 628 , and has placed

reliance on paragraphs 11 and 12 thereof, which are

extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

“11. We have already found that there is no

promise of marriage to coerce consent from the

victim for sexual intercourse; as forthcoming from

the statements made by the victim. The promise if

any was after the first physical intercourse and

even later the allegation was forceful intercourse

without any consent. In all the three instances it

was the allegation that, the intercourse was on

threat and coercion and there is no consent spoken

of by the victim, in which case there cannot be any

inducement found, on a promise held out. The

allegation of forceful intercourse on threat and

UKHC010024842023

2026:UHC:6669

7

coercion is also not believable, g iven the

relationship admitted between the parties and the

willing and repeated excursions to hotel rooms.

12. On a reading of the statements made by the

victim before the Police, both the First Information

Statement and that recorded later on, we are not

convinced that the sexual relationship admitted by

both the parties was without the consent of the

victim. That they were closely related and were in a

relationship is admitted by the victim. The

allegation is also of threat and coercion against the

victim, to have sexual intercourse with the accused,

which even as per the victim's statement was

repeated thrice in the same manner, when she

willingly accompanied the accused to a hotel room.

The victim had also categorically stated that after

the first incident and the second incident she was

mentally upset, but that did not caution her from

again accompanying the accused to hotel rooms.”

8. The learned counsel for the applicant would

draw parallels between the facts of the aforesaid

judgment in the case of J othiragawan and would submit

that there were three instances of intercourse under

threat and coercion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has

held that it was a case in which no inducement could be

found on the basis of a promise held out. The allegation

of forceful intercourse under threat and coercion is also

not believable, given the relationship admitted between

UKHC010024842023

2026:UHC:6669

8

the parties and the willing and repeated excursions to

hotel rooms.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant would

submit that even if the statements of the applicant are

taken as they stand , the said allegations do not

tantamount to making physical relations on the false

pretext of marriage, and the case of the applicant is

squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Jot hiragawan (supra).

10. Placing further reliance on the judgment of this

Court in the case of Sachin Kumar Singh Chauhan vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another , Criminal

Miscellaneous Application No. 274 of 2020, he would

particularly rely upon paragraphs 22 and 23 thereof,

which are extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

“22. In this background, reference may be made to

the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

cases of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar

Pradesh and Another, Nitin B. Nikhare v. The State

of Maharashtra & Anr., Ravish Singh Rana v. State

of Uttarakhand and Another, and Jothiragwan v.

State Rep. by the Inspector of Police and Another &

the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Dr.

Avdesh Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi and

Another as well as the judgment of the Coordinate

Bench of this Court in Shubham Kumar v. State of

UKHC010024842023

2026:UHC:6669

9

Uttarakhand & Anr., and the judgment of this Court

in Lalit Mohan Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr..

It is evident from the aforesaid judgments that the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, in cases

involving a consensual relationship between the

accused and the prosecutrix, where the initial

promise to marry does not appear to have been

false and the promise could not be fulfilled due to

intervening circumstances, and the relationship

subsequently ended, resulting in the registration of

an FIR, compelling the accused to face trial would

amount to an abuse of the process of law. In the

aforesaid cases, either the FIRs or the criminal

proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court.

23. On the other hand, insofar as the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anurag

Soni (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for

respondent no. 2, is concerned, the same is not

attracted to the factual matrix of the present case,

inasmuch as the consent given by the victim does

not appear to have been obtained under a

misconception of fact. From the record, it is clear

that respondent no. 2 is a mature lady, is in service,

and was fully aware of the consequences of

entering into a physical relationship with a man.

Moreover, the relationship continued for a

considerable period of about six years, and it was

only when the applicant refused to marry

respondent no. 2 that the FIR came to be lodged at

her behest.”

11. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments, he

would submit that it was a case involving a consensual

UKHC010024842023

2026:UHC:6669

10

relationship between the applicant and the respondent

No. 2, where the initial promise to marry does not appear

to have been a false promise. It would be a case involving

a consensual relationship between the applicant and the

respondent No. 2. He would further submit that the

consent given by the victim does not appear to have been

obtained under a misconception of fact. Hence, he

submitted that his case is also covered by the judgment

of this Court rendered in the case of Sachin Kumar Singh

Chauhan (supra). He would, thus, submit that, having

regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in

view of the settled law on the subject, the

summoning/cognizance order, the charge-sheet, and the

entire proceedings emanating therefrom are not

sustainable, and this Court needs to invoke its powers

under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the said

proceedings, as they are an utter abuse of the process of

law.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondent No. 2, Mr. Shariq Khurshid, would not

dispute the factual narration as made by the learned

counsel for the applicant. However, he would submit

that, with regard to the Facebook chats between the

applicant and the respondent No. 2, the I.O. has obtained

UKHC010024842023

2026:UHC:6669

11

a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. He

very fairly admits that, in the charge-sheet, there is no

mention of the collection of any obscene photographs or

any other incriminating material. He would fu rther

submit that there are three instances of physical

relationship between the applicant and the respondent

No. 2, and in all three instances, the year and month

have been specified.

13. He would further submit that it is proved that

the incidents did occur; during that period, the applicant

had come on leave from the NDRF, where he was serving

as a Sub-Inspector. However, he very fairly submitted

that, when the relationship was initially entered into, it

was not on the pretext of marriage. He would submit that

the applicant had physical relations with the respondent

No. 2 on the false pretext of marriage. Based on the

above submissions, he would submit that there is no

scope for interference by this Court in exercise of its

powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

14. Opposing the Criminal Miscellaneous

Application, the learned AGA, Mr. Siddhartha Bisht,

would submit that the victim is consistent in her

statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C.

UKHC010024842023

2026:UHC:6669

12

regarding the offence committed by the applicant. Even

in the FIR, her version is clear and consistent. Referring

to her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., he

would submit that the very first instance of entering into

a physical relationship was on the false pretext of

marriage. The marriage was refused because the

victim/respondent No. 2 belonged to a lower caste.

However, he very fairly submitted that the place where

the caste-related words were uttered is not very specific,

though he would submit that it was on a road and would

be deemed to be a public place. He would submit that, in

the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence

under the SC/ST Act would be attracted. However, he

has been very fair in submitting that before whom the

caste-related words were uttered in public, and whether

the applicant belongs to an upper caste is not specifically

mentioned anywhere. Making these submissions, the

learned AGA would submit that it is not a case where

interference can be made under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C.

15. As a rejoinder to the submissions made on

behalf of the respondents, Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, the

learned counsel for the applicant, would submit that,

from the record, it is clear that the applicant had not

UKHC010024842023

2026:UHC:6669

13

made any promise of marriage. In fact, the victim has

alleged that the applicant forced himself upon her and, in

all three instances, the intercourse was under threat and

coercion, and there is no consent spoken of by the victim.

He would submit that the case of the applicant is fully

covered by the judgment in the case of Jothiragawan

(supra).

16. Regarding the offence under the SC/ST Act, he

would submit that the offence under the SC/ST Act

would be attracted only if the offence under Section 376

of the IPC is established. If the offence under Section 376

of the IPC fails, then the offence under the SC/ST Act

would also fail.

17. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and having gone through the record, the question

that arises for determination in this case is whether the

physical relations entered into between the applicant and

the victim/respondent No. 2 were on the false pretext of

marriage or not.

18. A perusal of the FIR reveals that, in the main

factual narration, there is absolutely no mention of any

physical relationship having been entered into. Only at

the fag end of the FIR is there a mention that she was

UKHC010024842023

2026:UHC:6669

14

physically and mentally exploited for a physical

relationship on the false pretext of marriage. The

respondent No. 2 apparently improves her case in her

statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., where she

narrates the incidents with reference to time and, in one

instance, even mentions the name of the hotel. On a

closer scrutiny of the statements of the respondent No. 2,

it would reveal that, even if these statements are taken at

their face value, it is not a case where the applicant had

physical relations with the respondent No. 2 on the false

pretext of marriage, because the respondent No. 2 has

been categorical that whenever he had physical relations

with her, he forced himself upon her.

19. This allegation of making physical relations on

false pretext of marriage is totally unacceptable,

inasmuch as she had been in a relationship with the

applicant for quite a long time, admittedly since 2018,

when they became friends through the medium of

Facebook. Thereafter, she had been visiting hotels, and

admittedly visited hotels with the applicant on three

occasions, though her version has been at variance with

the FIR regarding the physical relations entered into with

the applicant in those hotels.

UKHC010024842023

2026:UHC:6669

15

20. It is also clear from the chronology of events

and the facts of the case that, though the respondent No.

2 alleges that the physical relationship was entered into

on the false pretext of marriage, there was no prior FIR or

any complaint, and it was only when the applic ant

refused to marry her that the FIR came to be registered.

21. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitin B.

Nikhare vs. State of Maharashtra and another, and

reference needs to be made to paragraph 7 thereof, which

is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“7. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that this

was a case of a consensual relationship from the

beginning. Even if the case of the prosecutrix is

accepted, it does not appear that the initial promise

to marry was in bad faith. It was only the

subsequent circumstances that prevented fulfilment

of alleged false promise to marry. Resultantly, the

relationship turned sour which has given rise to the

present FIR. Further, in view of the material on

record, we do not see this as a case where

provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can be

attracted.”

22. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, while quashing the criminal proceedings arising

out of an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections

UKHC010024842023

2026:UHC:6669

16

376(2)(n) and 417 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), (w)(i)

(ii), 3(2)(v), and 6 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, held that it was clear

that the case involved a consensual relationship from the

very beginning. Even if the case of the prosecutrix is

accepted, it does not appear that the initial promise to

marry was made in bad faith. It was only the subsequent

circumstances that prevented the fulfilment of the alleged

promise to marry. The relationship, which later turned

sour, gave rise to the FIR, which would not attract the

provisions of the SC/ST Act.

23. Thus, after considering the entirety of the facts

and the position of law on the subject, it is clear that the

physical relationship between the respondent No. 2 and

the applicant was not entered into on the false promise of

marriage. In fact, she was a consenting party throughout,

and she had travelled to hotels with the applicant on

three occasions. Thus, the case of the applicant is fully

covered by the judgments in Jothiragawan (supra) and

Nitin B. Nikhare (supra).

24. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it

would be a travesty of justice if the matter is permitted to

go to trial. Since the offence under Section 376 of the IPC

UKHC010024842023

2026:UHC:6669

17

would not be made out against the applicant in the given

facts and circumstances of the case, the other offences

would also not made out, the summoning order, the

charge-sheet and the entire proceedings of the criminal

case deserve to be quashed.

25. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. The cognizance and

summoning order dated 13.12.2022, the charge -sheet

dated 28.11.2022, as well as the entire proceedings of

Special Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2022, titled State Versus

Pankaj Kumar, under Sections 376, 504, and 506 of the

IPC and Section 3(2)(5)(a) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, Police

Station Ramnagar, District Nainital, pending before the

Court of the learned District & Sessions Judge/Special

Judge (SC/ST Act), Nainital, arising out of FIR No. 183 of

2022 dated 25.05.2022, registered under Sections 376,

504, and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST

Act, 1989, at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital,

are hereby quashed.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.)

31.07.2026

BS