HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 1877 of 2022 02nd April, 2026 Atul Francis Zachariah -Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand And Another -Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Devika Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned A.G.A. for the State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. The present Criminal Misc. Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing and setting-aside the chargesheet dated 14.07.2022, cognizance/summoning order dated 19.07.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 11 of 2022, State Vs. Atul Francis Zachariah, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 and 376 of IPC, pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal. 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as hereunder:- That in the month of February, 2022, the applicant and the complainant attended Yoga Classes at Rishikesh. After the completion of the Yoga Camp, the applicant and the complainant both lived in a hotel at Rishikesh and thereafter 2 they shifted to a Guest House namely Happy Home Stay and they lived together there since 09.04.2022. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged by the complainant on 22.05.2022 at Police Station Muni Ki Reti being FIR No. 0034 of 2022 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 and 376 of IPC. The complainant have alleged in the FIR that the applicant brutally assaulted and beat the complainant on 21.05.2022 at Happy Home Stay and also abused her verbally and when she tried to scream, he closed the window of the room and put his hand on her mouth and tried to choke her. Thereafter, he offered her poha, which was ordered and when she refused, he threw the poha on the floor and when she was crying, he tried to remove her clothes and thereafter he asked her to perform sex and when she refused, he sexually assaulted her. After the sexual act, the applicant felt asleep and the complainant also slept by his side and when she walk up in the evening, she packed her luggage and went downstairs and thereafter, she called some friends and left the room. On the next day evening, she had a flight to Bombay, but, she did not board the flight and went to the Police Station and lodged the FIR. Statement of the complainant was recorded under Sections 161 and Section 164 of Cr.P.C. In her statement, she has reiterated the averments made in the FIR. She has also submitted that the applicant and the complainant became good friends in a short term and they 3 started living together as boyfriend and girlfriend and were living as such in a common room for last more than two months. She has further stated in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as follows: - “I don’t want to press charges against him now. I think yesterday when I saw him he has felt remorse for this day, I don’t want to press charges against him and want to forgive him.” Thereafter, chargesheet was filed against the applicant under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 and 376 of IPC. Complainant was examined as PW1 and in her statement also, she has reiterated the facts, which were earlier stated by her in her statements under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and again she has reiterated the fact as follows: - “I don’t want to press charges against him now. I think yesterday when I saw him he has felt remorse for this day, I don’t want to press charges against him and want to forgive him.” 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the complainant have lodged the FIR in a fit rage and anger as some altercation took place between them regarding some trivial issue in relation to the booking of the flight. Learned counsel has further submitted that both the applicant and the complainant became good friends when they attended Yoga Classes and after completion of the Yoga Classes Course, they were living together for last more than two months in a common single room. In the statement given by the 4 complainant, she has admitted the fact that physical relations were established between the complainant and the applicant five-six times earlier also before the said incident. 4. Learned counsel has further relied upon the medical report of the complainant. Medical report does not support the prosecution story as no injury was found on the head or on the face of the complainant and neither any sign of forced sexual intercourse was present. Therefore, the charges of rape are not proved against the applicant. It is further submitted that though the incident happened in the afternoon of 21.05.2022, FIR was lodged after a delay of more than 28 hours while the Police Station was at Muni Ki Reti, which is just 200 meters away from the place of incident. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the complainant have stated that the applicant was not brutal during the sexual act and took care that the complainant does not get hurt and the complainant even cried on applicant’s gesture. This shows that this sexual act was a consensual act, which does not fall under the ambit of Section 376 of IPC. 5. In support of her statement, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 327. Paragraph 20 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereinbelow:- 5 “20. Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by accused, or where an accused, on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. Such cases must be treated differently. If the complainant had any mala fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 of the IPC.” 6. This fact was also reiterated in the case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46, wherein, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if between lovers’ consensual physical relationship is present, physical relationship between them cannot constitute rape. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Samadhan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528. Paragraph 29 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereinbelow:- “29. 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, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every sour 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 mere personal discord. The misuse of the 6 criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound concern and calls for condemnation." 8. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the present criminal misc. application. 9. Notices were also issued to the complainant, which were served upon her, but, despite service, no one has put in appearance on her behalf. 10. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State. 11. From the above facts, it is apparently clear that the applicant and the complainant were in live-in relationship as boyfriend and girlfriend in a single rented room and it is an admitted case that before incident which happened on 21.05.2022, they had made physical relationship five-six times earlier also. 12. It is also pertinent to mention here that at the time of incident, applicant was 26 years of age while complainant was 33 years of age. As such, both of them were mature enough and were possessed of sufficient understanding, maturity, and discernment to comprehend the nature and consequences of their actions, and that complainant had voluntarily joined the company of the applicant. 7 13. An educated and independent adult, upon entering into a consensual relationship, must also recognise that the law cannot be invoked to criminalize the mere failure of a relationship. The dissolution of a relationship, by itself, does not give rise to criminal liability. Such matters must be approached with sensitivity, restraint, and due respect for the autonomy and choices of both individuals involved. 14. It is also well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts that, in cases involving young offenders and consensual relationships between adolescents, a liberal approach may be warranted so as to prevent the regressive and adverse influences of prolonged incarceration and to further the principle of best interest of both the parties involved. 15. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to make out any offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC against the applicant. 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. 8 16. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed and the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 11 of 2022, State Vs. Atul Francis Zachariah, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 and 376 of IPC, pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, is hereby quashed, qua the applicant. (Alok Mahra, J.) 21.04.2026 Ujjwal