No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C-482 No. 503 of 2020 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Amreen Bano, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent no. 3/ complainant. 4. The present criminal misc. application is filed with a prayer to quash and set-aside the chargesheet, summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1215 of 2020, State Vs. Pramod Singh, under Sections 376, 506 and 120-B of IPC, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. 5. In this case, an FIR was lodged on 25.09.2018, by respondent no. 3, wherein, it was alleged that applicant and respondent no. 3 were in love relationship for last more than four years and on pretext of marriage, she was compelled to make physical relations with the applicant. She further submitted that even compromise was entered into between them with the settlement that both of them would marry each other, but, despite this fact, the applicant did not honour the terms and conditions of the compromise. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would argue that at the time of the alleged incident, the age of respondent no. 3/ complainant was 20 years. Applicant and the complainant, both were studying in class 12th and were major. It is further submitted that applicant did wanted to marry the complainant and in fact compromise was also reduced in writing on 05.06.2018, whereby, it was agreed that both of them would marry each other, but, somehow, due to misunderstanding, the marriage between them could not be solemnized. On this basis, it is submitted that it is not a case in which from the initial stage of the relationship, there was intention on the part of the applicant not to marry the complainant. 7. To support his case, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Navratna Vs. State of Chattisgarh and Others, (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4452 of 2025). For ready reference, paragraph Nos. 22 and 25 of the aforesaid judgment are extracted hereinbelow: - “22. The Courts have to be extrem ely careful and cautious in identifying the genuine cases filed under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC by identifying the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence i.e. there should be a promise of marriage made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations and without having any intent of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning, and that such false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations. Such genuine cases that deserve prosecution of the accused must be clearly demarcated from the litigation that arises from the cases of consensual relationships between consenting adults going acrimonious on account of dispute and disagreement or a future change of mind. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the respondent No.1-State and the complainant- respondent No.3 has failed to place any material on record to show how the accused-appellant on the subsequent meetings managed to repeatedly coax and dupe the complainant-respondent No.3 into having physical relations with him on the false pretext of marriage considering the fact that within initial meetings, both parties were aware about the marital status of the victim and therefore it cannot be, by any stretch imagination said that the consent of the complainant-respondent No.3 has been vitiated or obtained on fraud and misrepresentation made by the accused-appellant. 25. At this juncture, it is important to place reliance upon the observations in Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5 SCC 764, wherein this Court speaking through one of us (Nagarathna, J.) observed that a m ere break-up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in the initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marriage. Furtherm ore, this Court in Samadhan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528 through one of us (Nagarathna, J.) observed that this Court has, on numerous occasions, taken note of the disquieting tendency wherein failed or broken relationships are given the colour of criminality. The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, m ust be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every soured relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice. Such instances transcend the realm of m ere personal discord. The misuse of the criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound concern for the judiciary already facing a heavy load and calls for condemnation.” 8. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the present criminal misc. application. 9. Bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that both applicant and the victim were in love relations for the last more than four years and both were major and if somehow the marriage could not be solemnized between them, it could not be given a criminal colour. 10. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to make out any offence punishable under Section 376 IPC against the applicant. 11. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the applicant would be an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. 12. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1215 of 2020, State Vs. Pramod Singh, under Sections 376, 506 and 120-B of IPC, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed, qua the applicant. ( Alok Mah r a J.) 27.04.2026 Ujjwal