Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2104 (UTT)

TAUQEER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

C528/84/2026 · 2026-04-07

Alok Mahra

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:2474 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/84/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel or respondent no.2/complainant. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge- sheet, the cognizance/summoning order dated 17.10.2025 as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.194 of 2025 (Case Crime No.190 of 2025), under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m), 65(1) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3(a)/4(2), 5L/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., POCSO, Haridwar. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that an F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the victim alleging therein that his minor daughter had been enticed away by the applicant; that, it is alleged that the applicant had been in contact with the victim over a mobile phone and had persuaded her to leave her home; that, the complainant further alleged that when his daughter could not be traced, he approached the house of the applicant and requested his parents to persuade the applicant to disclose the whereabouts of the victim; however, the parents of the applicant allegedly abused 2026:UHC:2474 him and extended threats to his life. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant, upon which the learned trial court took cognizance and summoned the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that, there is no reliable documentary evidence regarding the age of the victim and the F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of six days, which creates serious doubt about the prosecution story; that, in absence of any cogent material evidence, the charge- sheet has been filed against the applicant and, therefore, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2/complainant vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicant; that, during the course of investigation the statement of the victim as well as the complainant was recorded under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S., wherein the victim has categorically supported the prosecution case. In her statement, the victim has stated that the applicant took her to a hotel where he administered an intoxicating substance to her by mixing the same in a cold drink, due to which she became unconscious and when she regained consciousness, she found herself in an undressed condition and the applicant told her that he had established physical relations with her. The victim has further stated that the applicant threatened her with dire consequences and warned her that if she 2026:UHC:2474 disclosed the incident to anyone, he would kill her and would also make viral the video allegedly recorded by him at the time of the incident. 8. It is further submitted that during investigation the Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of the Principal of the school first attended by the victim and according to the said statement and the school record, the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. It is also submitted that the contention of the applicant regarding delay in lodging the F.I.R. is misconceived as in cases involving offences of sexual assault, particularly under the POCSO Act, some delay in lodging the F.I.R. is natural as the victim and her family members often take time to overcome the shock, social stigma and mental trauma before approaching the authorities. Therefore, such delay cannot by itself be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. From the record, it appears that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded during investigation and has made specific allegations against the applicant. The material collected during investigation, including the statement of the victim and the school record relating to her age, prima facie discloses the commission of offences under the provisions of the B.N.S. and the POCSO Act. At this stage, this Court cannot examine the reliability or truthfulness of such statements, as the same are matters to be considered during trial. 2026:UHC:2474 11. The contention of the applicant regarding delay in lodging the F.I.R. also does not justify quashing of the proceedings. It is well settled that in cases relating to sexual offences, delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot by itself be treated as fatal to the prosecution case, as the victim and her family often hesitate to approach the authorities due to social stigma and trauma. It is also settled law that while exercising jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, the Court is only required to examine whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the material collected during investigation disclose the commission of any offence. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage, and the inherent power to quash proceedings must be exercised sparingly. 12. In the present case, considering the statement of the victim and the material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The issues raised by the applicant involve disputed questions of fact, which can be examined only during trial. Therefore, no ground is made out for quashing the proceedings. 13. Accordingly, the present C-528 application is hereby dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 07.04.2026 Mamta MA MTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f2 44f3e584af1449e430ef900bf0 9a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d 9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66 dd26690a191648ab5d8dd00 4ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.04.09 11:07:23 +05'30'