UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No.1736 of 2021

Salman Ali …. Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another ……… Respondent s

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

Present:-

Mr. Mohd. Sohail, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sandeep

Kothari, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned AGA for the State.

Mr. Maneesh Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vipul

Sharma, 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 impugned cognizance/summoning order

dated 27.11.2020 passed by the learned Incharge Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in Criminal Case No.

4062/2020, State Vs. Salman (arising out of Case Crime

No. 309/2020, under Sections 376, 313, and 506 of the

IPC, Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar,

subsequently transferred to Police Station Dalanwala,

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

2

District Dehradun, as Case Crime No. 109/2020, under

Sections 376, 313, and 506 of the IPC), and further to

quash all consequential proceedings pursuant to the

aforesaid cognizance/summoning order dated

27.11.2020 passed by the learned Incharge Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 4062/2020

(State Vs. Salman) under Sections 376, 313, and 506 of

the IPC, Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun.

2. The case of the applicant, as pleaded in the

Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is

that the applicant is a permanent resident of Village

Sultanpur Adampur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. As

per the agreement between the family members of the

Applicant and Respondent No. 2, the marriage between

the Applicant and Respondent No. 2 was fixed in the year

2016. However, due to certain differences, it was decided

that the marriage would not be solemnized.

3. It is the case of the Applicant that Respondent

No. 2 conspired with certain persons to commit the theft

of the Applicant's mobile phone with the objective of

feeding obscene photographs and vulgar videos into the

memory of the mobile phone so that a case could be

fabricated to falsely implicate the Applicant on the basis

of the said obscene photographs and vulgar videos,

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

3

alleging that they were taken during the period when the

parties were in contact with each other , thereby

pressurizing the Applicant to solemnize the marriage with

Respondent No. 2.

4. It is further the case of the Applicant that, in

order to achieve the aforesaid objective, on 08.06.2020, a

robbery was committed against the Applicant while he

was returning from his duty. Three persons, who were

coming from behind on a motorcycle, snatched and

robbed the Applicant of his Vivo V9 mobile phone

containing two active mobile numbers, namely

9897893225 and 9411164613. The Applicant reported

the said incident to the police, on the basis of which a

First Information Report was registered as Case Crime

No. 216 of 2020 under Section 392 of the IPC at Police

Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar, on 08.06.2020.

5. It is further the case of the Applicant that,

during the investigation of the aforesaid case, the police

recovered the Applicant's mobile phone from the accused

persons, namely Burhan, son of Meharban, and Danish,

son of Samim Ahmad. Upon interrogation, the accused

persons stated that their sister/resp ondent no.2,

daughter of Mazahir Hasan, had informed them that the

present Applicant, a resident of Laksar, had data

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

4

containing obscene photographs and videos on his

mobile phone and was threatening to circulate the same

before the marriage. They further stated that they were

pressured by respondent no.2 to obtain the mobile

phone, and accordingly, on 08.06.2020, the robbery was

committed.

6. The police also found the involvement of some

other persons and Respondent No. 2, who was also made

an accused in the aforesaid case under Section 120 -B of

the IPC. A charge sheet was submitted in the aforesaid

case under Sections 392 and 411 of the IPC, and against

Respondent No. 2 under Section 392 read with Section

120-B of the IPC.

7. It is further the case of the Applicant that

when the aforesaid First Information Report was

registered on 08.06.2020 and when the arrests and

recoveries were made on 13.06.2020, Respondent No. 2

lodged a false and fabricated case on 24.06.2020 at

Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, Dis trict Haridwar,

wherein it has been alleged that, in the year 2016, the

marriage of the informant/Respondent No. 2 was fixed

with the present Applicant and, during such period, there

were repeated meetings between Respondent No. 2 and

the Applicant. However, subsequently, she came to know

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

5

that the Applicant was having affairs with other girls, and

hence, it was decided not to solemnize the marriage

between the parties. The present Applicant was

intimidating Respondent No. 2 by threatening that the

photographs in his possession would be made viral, and

it is alleged in the FIR that, by pressurizing her, the

Applicant established forcible physical relations with her.

It is further alleged that she became pregnant and that

the Applicant administered her a tablet, as a result of

which the abortion took place.

8. It is further alleged in the FIR that, initially,

due to social pressure, she did not discuss the incident,

but later informed her family members and reported the

matter. After the lodging of the FIR, the Investigating

Officer, upon finding that the incident fell within the

territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Dalanwala,

District Dehradun, transferred the case to Police Station

Dalanwala, District Dehradun, where it was registered as

Case Crime No. 109/2020 under Sections 376, 313, and

506 of the IPC.

9. It is further the case of the Applicant that, as a

counterblast, when Respondent No. 2 got implicated in

the criminal case of robbery, and when the motive behind

the robbery was to feed the memory of the Applicant's

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

6

mobile phone with certain obscene photographs of

Respondent No. 2 so that the Applicant could be

implicated in a false case, the present First Information

Report came to be registered.

10. It is also the case of the Applicant that the

allegations regarding obscene photographs and vulgar

videos were not substantiated for the simple reason that

the Applicant's mobile phone was sent to the CFSL, from

where the complete data of the phone was retrieved and

provided to the Investigating Officer. However, nothing

adverse against the Applicant was found in the pen drive

so provided by the FSL. A copy of the FSL report has

been placed on record.

11. It is also the case of the Applicant that the

allegations made in the FIR regarding the commission of

rape or assault contain no particulars as to the manner

in which they have been made. The only purpose of

Respondent No. 2 was to falsely implicate the Applicant.

12. In a routine and mechanical manner, the

charge sheet has been submitted, and the lear ned

Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the

Applicant to face trial vide order dated 27.11.2020.

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

7

13. It is also submitted on behalf of the Applicant

that the FIR and the conclusions arrived at during the

investigation, as reflected in the charge sheet, clearly

reveal that no offence has been committed by the

Applicant. It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that,

due to certain differences, the marriage between the

Applicant and Respondent No. 2 could not be solemnized.

Both parties were majors and were fully aware of the

relationship they were entering into, and it was not a

case of a false promise of marriage. The Applicant always

intended to solemnize the marriage, but due to

differences between the families, the marriage could not

take place. The FIR has been lodged against the

Applicant to pressurize him in relation to the FIR lodged

by the Applicant against the persons who had robbed his

mobile phone, in which Respondent No. 2 is also

implicated. There was no intention on the part of the

Applicant not to solemnize the marriage.

14. On the aforesaid premise, it was prayed that

the charge sheet, the summoning order, and the entire

proceedings against the Applicant be quashed.

15. Per contra, learned counsel for r espondent No.

2, Mr. Maneesh Bisht, holding brief for Mr. Vipul

Sharma, admitted the fact that marriage talks had taken

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

8

place and also admitted that a Roka ceremony was held

on 27.11.2016. He submitted that, during the marriage

talks/interactions between the Applicant and Respondent

No. 2, certain photographs were taken, which were stored

in the Applicant's mobile phone. When Respondent No. 2

came to know that the Applicant had relationships with

other girls, she called off the marriage talks. In the year

2019, the Applicant started blackmailing her on the basis

of the photographs stored in his mobile phone.

16. By referring to the medical examination report,

the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that

the physical relationship between the Applicant and

Respondent No. 2 was not entered into on the false

pretext of marriage but on account of the photographs

contained in the Applicant's mobile phone. Referring to

the medical examination report of Respondent No. 2, he

submitted that it records a history of sexual assault on

multiple occasions from August 2019 to November 2019

after the victim was intoxicated with some substance and

threatened with photographs and videos.

17. Thus, the learned counsel for Respondent No.

2 submitted that this is not a case in which interference

ought to be exercised by the Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the FSL report itself

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

9

states that the deleted and formatted data could not be

retrieved from the Applicant's mobile phone, and that it

was last accessed on 22.08.2020.

18. Learned AGA for the State, Mr. Siddharth

Bisht, relied upon the statements of the victim recorded

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and submitted that the victim

has supported the prosecution case and has remained

consistent in her statements regarding the off ences

allegedly committed by the Applicant. He submitted that

there is no scope for interference in the present case

under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

19. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and upon perusal of the record, the following

facts are undisputed:

i. Marriage talks were going on between the

Applicant's family and Respondent No. 2

and her family. It is admitted that a Roka

ceremony was held on 27.11.2016.

ii. It is borne out from the statements of the

victim recorded under Section 164

Cr.P.C. that the marriage talks were

called off in January 2020 at the instance

of the family members of Respondent No.

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

10

2 after it came to light that the Applicant

was involved with some other girls.

iii. The statements recorded under Section

164 Cr.P.C. also indicate that Respondent

No. 2 has admitted that the physical

relationship between her and the

Applicant was entered into voluntarily.

20. Firstly, it is an admitted fact that an FIR was

registered at the instance of the Applicant on 08.06.2020

at Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar, wherein

it was alleged that three persons had robbed him of his

mobile phone.

21. It is also an admitted fact that, pursuant to the

aforesaid FIR dated 08.06.2020, a charge sheet was

submitted in which the name of Respondent No. 2 also

surfaced along with the other co-accused. It is also

evident from the record that an FIR was registered at

Police Station Dalanwala on 13.07.2020 at the instance

of Respondent No. 2 pursuant to her complaint

addressed to the SSP, Haridwar, dated 16.06.2020. It is

pertinent to mention that the Applicant's mobile phone

had already been recovered by the police on 13.06.2020

during the investigation of the FIR dated 08.06.2020.

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

11

22. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at

length and perused the record.

23. The first issue for determination by this Court

is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present

case, the FIR registered at the instance of Respondent

No. 2 pursuant to her application/complaint addressed

to the SSP, Haridwar, and ultima tely registered on

13.07.2020, was a counterblast to the FIR dated

08.06.2020 lodged by the Applicant.

24. First of all, the FIR lodged at the instance of

Respondent No. 2 requires a brief narration. In the FIR,

Respondent No. 2 stated that, in the year 2 016, her

family members had fixed her marriage with the

Applicant, and thereafter, she started meeting the

Applicant, during which he clicked certain photographs

of her. Subsequently, she came to know that the

Applicant had relationships with certain other girls.

Therefore, she and her family members refused to

proceed with the marriage. On account of this, the

Applicant became hostile and started threatening her by

stating that he had certain photographs of Respondent

No. 2 stored in his mobile phone, which he would make

viral, and he also extended other threats.

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

12

25. It is further alleged in the FIR that the

Applicant pressurized her and forcibly established

physical relations with her. It is also alleged that, when

she became pregnant, the Applicant caused her

pregnancy to be terminated by administering a tablet.

She did not disclose these incidents to her family

members due to fear of public shame. However, she later

revealed the truth to her family and thereafter lodged the

report.

26. However, in her statement recorded under

Section 164 Cr.P.C., Respondent No. 2 stated that, in the

year 2016, her family members had performed her Roka

ceremony with the Applicant. When she went to

Dehradun for her studies, the Applicant used to visit and

meet her. Everything was cordial between them, and they

used to have telephonic conversations. In the year 2019,

she took a room at BPS Girls and Boys P.G. Hostel,

Dehradun. One day, in August or September 2019, the

Applicant came to her room and placed a handkerchief

over her nose, after which she does not remember what

happened. She fell asleep and later woke up feeling weak

and experiencing tightness. When she told the Applicant

that she was feeling something strange, the Applicant

told her that she appeared to be tired.

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

13

27. The Applicant used to visit and meet her on

several occasions. When she did not get her menstrual

period for some time, Soumya told her that if anything

had happened between the two of them, she should take

a pregnancy test. Soumya then got a pregnancy test kit

for her, and the result came positive. Thereafter, she

disclosed the same to the Applicant. The Applicant gave

her an abortion pill, following which she underwent an

abortion. When she wanted to disclose these facts to her

family members, the Applicant threatened her, stating

that he had obscene videos and that if she revealed

anything, he would make them viral. Consequently, she

became frightened. On another occasion, he called her to

meet him and again established physical relations with

her. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 disclosed these facts to

her family members. Subsequently, in January, the

marriage alliance was called off, and the report was

lodged in July.

28. A perusal of the statement of Respondent No. 2

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. would reveal that she

has admitted that the physical relationship with the

Applicant was entered into on her own free will and

volition, and that there had been a long -standing

relationship between the Applicant and Respondent No.

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

14

2. Even with regard to the first instance of the physical

relationship between the Applicant and Respondent No.

2, she is not categorical either as to the date or the

manner in which it allegedly took place.

29. If the allegations contained in the FIR and the

statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are

considered in the light of the FIR lodged on 08.06.2020 at

the instance of the Applicant, it becomes clear that the

FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 2 only as a

counterblast to the FIR lodged by the Applicant on

08.06.2020. The allegations levelled by Respondent No. 2

against the Applicant regarding the establishment of

physical relations under threats based on obscene videos

and photographs allegedly stored in the Applicant's

mobile phone are belied by the fact that, pursuant to the

recovery of the Applicant's mobile phone, the FSL report

did not retrieve any such material.

30. The allegations levelled in the FIR lodged by

Respondent No. 2 appear to be a counterblast and to

have been initiated maliciously due to the earlier FIR

lodged by the Applicant on 08.06.2020. Thus, the case of

the Applicant would be covered by the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan

Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein, in paragraph 102,

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

15

Illustration 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically

held that, in cases involving malicious complaints for

wreaking vengeance, the High Court may exercise its

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of

justice. Para 102 of the said judgment is extracted

hereunder for ready reference:-

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the

various relevant provisions of the Code under

Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated

by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the

exercise of the extraordinary power under Article

226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the

Code which we have extracted and reproduced

above, we have given the following categories of

cases by way of illustration wherein such power

could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the

process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends

of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down

any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently

channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid

formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad

kinds of cases wherein such power should be

exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first

information report or the complaint, even if they

are taken at their face value and accepted in

their entirety do not prima facie constitute any

offence or make out a case against the

accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information

report and other materials, if any,

accompanying the FIR do not disclose a

cognizable offence, justifying an investigation

by police officers under Section 156(1) of the

Code except under an order of a Magistrate

within the purview of Section 155(2) of the

Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in

the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected

in support of the same do not disclose the

commission of any offence and make out a

case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not

constitute a cognizable offence but constitute

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

16

only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation

is permitted by a police officer without an order

of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section

155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently

improbable on the basis of which no prudent

person can ever reach a just conclusion that

there is sufficient ground for proceeding

against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in

any of the provisions of the Code or the

concerned Act (under which a criminal

proceeding is instituted) to the institution and

continuance of the proceedings and/or where

there is a specific provision in the Code or the

concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for

the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the

accused and with a view to spite him due to

private and personal grudge.”

31. It is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Jothiragawan v. State Rep. by the

Inspector of Police and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC

628. In that case, it was submitted on behalf of the

appellant that there were multiple interactions between

the complainant and the accused, both of whom were

major individuals, which clearly indicated consent on the

part of the complainant, the alleged victim.

32. Regarding the allegation of forcible intercourse

on the basis of threat and coercion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the allegation of forcible intercourse on the basis of threat and coercion

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

17

was not believable, given the relationship admitted

between the parties and their willing and repeated visits

to hotel rooms.

33. It was also held that the allegation of threat

and coercion to compel the victim to have sexual

intercourse with the accused was not believable,

particularly when, as per the victim's own statement, the

same sequence of events was repeated thrice, and on

each occasion she willingly accompanied the accused to a

hotel room. The victim had also categorically stated that

after the first and second incidents she was mentally

upset, but that did not deter her from again

accompanying the accused to hotel rooms.

34. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

came to the conclusion that the criminal proceedings

initiated against the appellant were nothing but an abuse

of the process of the Court. Drawing parallels with the

said case, it is clear from the statement of Respondent

No. 2 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that there is an

admission regarding the physical relationship entered

into between the Applicant and Respondent No. 2. Hence,

it would be presumed that the relationship was

consensual. Therefore, the allegations that the physical

relationship between the parties was entered into on

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

18

account of threats to make the photographs and videos

viral appear to be an afterthought.

35. In view of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances, and considering that the FIR lodged at

the instance of Respondent No. 2 appears to be vexatious

and motivated by mala fides with the intention of taking

vengeance against the Applicant due to personal

animosity, the allegations made in the FIR are also

absurd and inherently improbable, on the basis of which

no prudent person could ever reach the conclusion that

there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the

Applicant. Thus, in order to secure the ends of justice

and prevent the abuse of the process of law, the present

Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482

Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed.

36. Hence, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed, and the

summoning order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the

learned Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in

Criminal Case No. 4062/2020, State Vs. Salman (arising

out of Case Crime No. 309/2020, under Sections 376,

313, and 506 of the IPC, Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur,

District Haridwar, subsequently transferred to Police

Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun, as Case Crime No.

UKHC010151032021

2026:UHC:6629

19

109/2020 under Sections 376, 313, and 506 of the IPC),

and all consequential proceedings pu rsuant to the

aforesaid cognizance/summoning order dated

27.11.2020 passed by the learned Incharge Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 4062/2020

(State Vs. Salman) under Sections 376, 313, and 506 of

the IPC, Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun, are

hereby quashed.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.)

30.07.2026

BS