2025:UHC:3095 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application (u/s 528) No. 420 of 2025 15 April, 2025 Pankaj Adhikari --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel for applicant. Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for State of Uttarakhand/ respondent No.1. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (through V.C.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present C528 application, the applicant has put to challenge the charge-sheet dated 23.10.2024, cognizance order dated 14.11.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3596 of 2024 State Vs. Pankaj Adhikari, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. 3. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by the informant/respondent No.2 with the averments that she was a Teacher in a School and was staying in a P.G. in Rudrapur; she came in contact with the applicant who was running a Tea Shop in the same place. On 13.01.2024, the applicant called her to have talks for solemnizing of marriage; their family members were also known about this relation. The applicant kept of giving assurances to the informant-respondent No.2 of solemnizing marriage soon. The respondent No.2 even purchased some household items after taking 1 2025:UHC:3095 loans; the applicant came to the new house and then, he offered the proposal of court marriage with the respondent No.2. The applicant had also visited the respondent No.2 for five to six months and during this period, the applicant forcefully established physical relations with her and after some time on an altercation, the applicant raised hand upon her and he began to commit physical and mental cruelty upon respondent No.2. With these averments, the FIR was lodged. 4. The matter was investigated and a charge- sheet was submitted. On the said charge-sheet, learned In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar vide order dated 14.11.2024 took the cognizance and summoned the applicant to face the trial under Sections 323, 376 and 506 IPC. Challenging the entire proceedings as well as the cognizance order, the applicant is before this Court by filing the present C528 application. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant did not commit any offences as narrated in the FIR; he has falsely been implicated in the matter; the charge-sheet was submitted against him without conducting fair and thorough inquiry; the case is totally false against him. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel argued that in this matter, the applicant on promised of marrying respondent No.2, established physical relations with her. 2 2025:UHC:3095 7. Having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and the offences leveled against the applicant, I am of the view that the offences alleged against the applicant are quite serious. The veracity of the allegations leveled in the FIR can only be tested before the competent trial court. So far as the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned that Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again in the matters of consisting false pretext of marriage, the Court should be liberal towards the accused, this Court is of the opinion that it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, the applicant not only established the physical relations on the pretext of marriage, but also coerced the respondent No.2 to buy household articles by borrowing a loan; on an altercation, even he committed physical and mental cruelty upon her. Thus the present case is entirely different. 8. In such view of the matter, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned summoning order. The C528 application thus fails and the same is accordingly dismissed in-limine. 9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 15.04.2025 R.Dang 3