2026:UHC:3643 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528 No.373 of 2024 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mrs. Neeti Rana, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Manoj Bhatt, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. There is no representation for respondent no.2. 2. Present C-528 application is filed with the prayer to set-aside/ quash the charge sheet dated 20.05.2024, cognizance/ summoning order dated 18.06.2024 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.69 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat. 3. As per the prosecution case, respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. alleging that the applicant induced her into a relationship on the false representation that his wife had expired and, believing the said representation to be true, she started residing with the applicant as his wife. It has further been alleged that both of them continued to live together as husband and wife for about eighteen years at different places of posting of the applicant, who is a Government servant. The F.I.R. was lodged on 01.04.2024. 4. During investigation, statements of respondent no.2 were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she reiterated that she came in contact with the applicant in the year 2006 and thereafter both of them voluntarily started living together as husband and wife. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondent no.2 further stated that, in the year 2017, she came to know that the applicant was already married and had 2026:UHC:3643 children, however, despite having full knowledge of the said fact, she neither lodged any complaint nor severed relations with the applicant and continued to cohabit with him for several years thereafter. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire relationship between the parties was consensual in nature and continued for approximately eighteen years out of their own free will. It is contended that both the applicant and respondent no.2 were major, mature persons having their respective families and were fully conscious of the nature and consequences of their conduct. It is further submitted that even according to the own case of the prosecution, respondent no.2 continued to reside with the applicant for nearly seven years after acquiring knowledge about his subsisting marriage and, therefore, the essential ingredient of misconception of fact is wholly absent. It is further argued that the allegations made in the F.I.R. and statements recorded during investigation do not disclose commission of offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C., inasmuch as, the physical relationship between the parties was not on account of any immediate or continuing deception after the year 2017, when respondent no.2 admittedly became aware that the applicant was already married. Learned counsel submits that continuation of the relationship thereafter was purely consensual and voluntary. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. appears to have been lodged due to personal and monetary disputes between the parties, particularly when the applicant had earlier lodged a complaint on 28.03.2024 and respondent no.2 was allegedly demanding a sum of Rs.12,00,000/ - from the applicant. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The parties remained in a long-standing live-in 2026:UHC:3643 relationship for about eighteen years. The statements of respondent no.2 recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. clearly demonstrate that she continued the relationship even after acquiring knowledge regarding the marital status of the applicant. There is no allegation that, after the year 2017, the applicant continued to make any false representation regarding his marital status so as to obtain consent by deception. 7. It is well settled that for attracting the offence of rape on the basis of misconception of fact, the consent must have been obtained on account of a false promise or deception which had a direct bearing on the decision of the prosecutrix to engage in the physical relationship. Where parties continue in a consensual relationship for a prolonged period despite full knowledge of all relevant facts, the ingredients constituting the offence are not prima facie made out. 8. In the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the dispute essentially arises out of a strained personal relationship between two consenting adults who remained in a live-in relationship for a considerable period of time. Even if the entire prosecution case is accepted on its face value, no prima facie offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the criminal application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.69 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, are hereby quashed. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 13.05.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a 20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109 CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.05.13 18:16:33 +05'30'