No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C482 No. 1554 of 2022 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Kirti Sharan Agarwal, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 2. In this case, an FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2 on 08.04.2022 under Sections 323, 376, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SCST Act. In the FIR, it was alleged that applicant and the complainant were having relations for last more than two years and the victim was induced on the false pretext of marriage given by the applicant and several times physical relations were established between them. Thereafter, ultimately, the applicant have abused her with caste related remarks and on the ground that she belongs to a lower caste refused to marry her. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit that before lodging of the present FIR, father of respondent no. 2 have made a complaint on 06.04.2022 that respondent no. 2 went to Jaspur for some work, but, did not return back and she is using different phones and thus he has apprehension that his daughter is in the company of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that only vague allegations have been levelled against the applicant. Even bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that it is a case of love relation, which got sour after some time and applicant and respondent no. 2 were studying in the same college. At the time of incident, applicant was aged about 22 years, while respondent no. 2 was aged about 21 years. In her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., she has narrated this story of the prosecution. It is further submitted that a compounding application was also filed by the parties in which an affidavit was also filed before the Court that the FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding between the parties, but, after filing of the compounding application, the parties did not appear to press their compounding application. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the applicant time and again cozed the victim for making physical relations on the false pretext of marriage. This shows that physical relations between them were made as the victim was induced by the applicant on the false pretext of marriage. To support his case, learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Naushad, (2013) 16 SCC 651, whereby, it is held that ‘consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception.’ It is further held in the aforesaid judgment that ‘a woman’s body is not a man’s plaything and he cannot take advantage of it in order to satisfy his lust and desires by fooling a woman into consenting to sexual intercourse simply because he wants to indulge in it.” 5. To this, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that general and vague allegations have been levelled against the applicant regarding making physical relations on the false pretext of marriage and these allegations are not corroborated by any evidence. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravish Singh Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1055. For ready reference, paragraph nos. 15, 16 and 17 of the aforesaid judgement are extracted hereinbelow: - “15. Moreover, in a long drawn live-in relationship, occasions may arise where parties in that relationship express their desire or wish to formalize the same by a seal of marriage, but that expression of desire, or wish, by itself would not be indicative of relationship being a consequence of that expression of desire or wish. A decade or two earlier, live-in relationships might not have been common. But now more and more women are financially independent and have the capacity to take conscious decision of charting their life on their own terms. This financial freedom, inter alia, has led to proliferation of such live-in relationships. Therefore, when a matter of this nature comes to a court, it must not adopt a pedantic approach rather the Court may, based on the length of such relationship and conduct of the parties, presume implied consent of the parties to be in such a relationship regardless of their desire or a wish to convert it into a marital bond. 16. In that view of the matter, in our considered view, the longdrawn relationship of the appellant and the second respondent including the circumstance of their living together and cohabiting with each other, that too, in a separate rented accommodation, would give rise to a presumption that their relationship was based on a valid consent. 17. The settlement agreement, dated 19.11.2023, which is not disputed by the second respondent, points out that the parties had been in love. In such circumstances, we are of the view that on ground of refusal to marry, the appellant cannot be subjected to prosecution for the offence of rape. The other allegations of assault and abuse have not been supported by any material particulars. Even the alleged sexual assault on 18.11.2023 is negated by the recital in the settlement agreement that parties love each other.” 6. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, would submit that as per the medical report dated 25.04.2022, the victim was pregnant of five weeks and three days and DNA of the foetus matched with that of the applicant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Be that as it may, even the learned counsel for the applicant has not denied that applicant and the victim were in physical relationship. Thus, this Court finds some force in submission made by learned counsel for the applicants. 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. 9. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed and the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 522 of 2022, State Vs. Shubham Kumar Chauhan, pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed, qua the applicant. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 18.05.2026 Ujjwal