SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482 No.898 of 2020 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.S. Pal, A.G.A. and Mr. Nikhil Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Present C-528 application is filed with the prayer to set-aside/ quash the charge sheet dated 15.09.2020, cognizance/ summoning order dated 28.10.2020 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3854 of 2020, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 3. Respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. on 17.07.2020 alleging therein that she had been in a relationship with applicant no.1 since the year 2006 and that applicant no.1, on the false pretext of marriage, established physical relations with her. It was further alleged that, subsequently, applicant no.1 solemnized marriage with another woman on 13.07.2020, whereafter the present F.I.R. came to be lodged. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the applicants. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present F.I.R. has been lodged only with an intent to victimize and harass the applicants. It is contended that admittedly applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 were in a relationship since the year 2006; however, due to non-consent and disapproval of the parents of applicant no.1 for the proposed marriage, the relationship ultimately came to an end in the year 2011 itself. It is further submitted that the aforesaid fact is evident from the complaint dated 14.11.2011 filed by the mother of respondent no.2 before the Women Commission, wherein statements of both the parties were recorded and it was reflected that, owing to the unwillingness of the parents of applicant no.1 to accept the marriage, the relationship between the parties had broken down. It is argued that despite the relationship having ended in the year 2011, the impugned F.I.R. came to be lodged after an inordinate delay of about nine years. 5. Learned counsel further submits that even a bare perusal of the F.I.R. would demonstrate that only vague and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicants. According to him, the present case is nothing but a consequence of a consensual relationship having turned sour. It is also contended that both applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 were majors at the inception of the relationship in the year 2006 and the relationship between them remained consensual throughout till the year 2011. It is further argued that there was never any fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of applicant no.1 from the very inception not to marry respondent no.2 and that the marriage could not be solemnized solely on account of opposition from the family members of applicant no.1, owing to which the relationship ultimately deteriorated. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Amol Bhagwan Nehul Vs. State of Maharashtra & another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230, wherein it has been held that a consensual relationship subsequently turning sour or parties drifting apart cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for setting the criminal law into motion. It was further observed that such prosecutions not only unnecessarily burden the Courts, but also cast a serious stigma upon an individual accused of a grave offence. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly cautioned against the misuse of the provisions and has deprecated the tendency to treat every breach of a promise to marry as a false promise so as to attract prosecution under Section 376 I.P.C. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The allegations levelled in the F.I .R., even if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose a long- standing consensual relationship between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 which continued from the year 2006 till 2011. The material on record, particularly the complaint dated 14.11.2011 filed before the Women Commission, clearly indicates that the relationship had already come to an end owing to opposition from the family members of applicant no.1 and not on account of any fraudulent inducement or false promise from the inception. The F.I.R. came to be lodged after an unexplained delay of about nine years, only after applicant no.1 solemnized marriage with another woman. I n absence of any material indicating dishonest intention at the inception of the relationship, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3854 of 2020, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, are hereby quashed. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 21.05.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb 7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB9874 46351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.05.21 16:53:56 +05'30'