HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.1811 of 2022 Shankar Sahokar ………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ………Respondents Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned AGA for the State. Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of the present C-482 application, the applicant has challenged the charge-sheet dated 03.08.2022 under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and summoning/cognizance order dated 29.08.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Garur, Bageshwar in Criminal Case No.117 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand vs. Shankar Sahokar. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent no.2/complainant lodged an FIR against present applicant at Police Station Kausani on 30.05.2022 bearing FIR No.5/2022, under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 with the allegations that the applicant from the year 2012 is making physical relations with respondent no.2/complainant on the false pretext of marriage and is now denying to marry the complainant. 3. The learned counsel of the applicant submits that the FIR is based on false and concocted facts. He pleads that there is no independent witness to show that the alleged incident ever happened. He further pleads that the FIR was lodged in the year 2022 for the offence committed from year 2012 which raises great suspicion on the prosecution story. 1 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent no.2 wanted to marry him but when he denied, the FIR was lodged to pressurize the applicant. He submits that the applicant is working outside Uttarakhand. Therefore, there was no occasion to meet the complainant. He also submits that the Investigation Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant in spite of the fact that there was no substantial evidence against the applicant and the learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind has mechanically issued summons on the basis of the impugned charge-sheet. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submits that the Investigation Officer after due investigation and on the basis of statements given by the prosecutrix and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statements of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has rightfully submitted the charge-sheet and the learned court below has done no illegality in issuing summons against the applicant. 6. Respondent no.2 in her counter affidavit submits that a prima facie case against the applicant is made out from the bare perusal of the FIR and it is established position of law that the jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly. 7. The applicant in his rejoinder affidavit submits that in the FIR, the complainant/respondent no.2 has never disclosed the fact of false promise to marry made by the applicant in the year 2012. He further submits that he is even ready to undergo DNA test to prove his innocence. 2 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the charges against the accused are very serious in nature the veracity of which could only be reached at after a proper trial. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to use its extraordinary powers provided under section 482 Cr.P.C. and interfere in the impugned proceedings. 9. Accordingly, the present C482 application is hereby dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 20.05.2025 Ravi 3