No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C482 No. 1809 of 2022 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Anchit Khokher, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.S. Pal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 2. In this case, victim lodged an FIR on 27.10.2021 in which it was alleged that the applicant on the false pretext of marriage, established physical relations with her. It is mentioned in the FIR that both applicant and victim were friends and were knowing each other for last more than one year as they were studying in the college. After the FIR was lodged, statement of the victim were recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in which she failed to recognize the room in which she has alleged that boy had made physical relations with her and even she was not able to tell the specific time or date when the physical relations were made. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case as when victim was taken to doctor for medical examination, she denied to undergo the medical examination. It is further submitted that since the victim has refused to undergo her internal medical examination, presumption would be read against her that no such act of rape was committed upon her. In support of his case, learned counsel has 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 m ere personal discord. The misuse of the criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound concern and calls for condemnation." 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that both the applicant and the victim were belonging to the same age group i.e. about 23 years at the time of the incident. Even if the averments of the FIR are taken to be true, then also, it is a case of consensual act and both were mature enough to understand the consequences of their action and were possessed of sufficient understanding, maturity, and discernment to comprehend the nature and consequences of their actions. It is further submitted that 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. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel, on the other hand, would submit that victim has supported the prosecution story in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. 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. 8. 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. 2003 of 2022, State Vs. Abhinav Khare, under Section 376 IPC, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, District Dehradun, is hereby quashed, qua the applicant. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 19.05.2026 Ujjwal