2026:UHC:3683 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 C4 8 2 / 7 7 3 / 2 0 2 3 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Prabhat Bohra, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pratiroop Pande, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 19.09.2022, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6496 of 2022 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, arising out of offences punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, as per the prosecution case itself, matrimonial talks were going on between the families of the applicant and respondent no.2/victim and the marriage between them was under active consideration. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that after completing her M.A., respondent no.2 came to Dehradun for coaching classes and during that period, she accompanied the applicant to Haridwar and Rishikesh, where physical relations were established between them on the assurance that they would shortly marry. It is further alleged that physical relations continued on several occasions, however, subsequently the applicant informed respondent no.2 that his 2026:UHC:3683 marriage had been fixed with another girl and he would not be able to marry her, on which, after completion of investigation, the chargsheet has been filed and learned trial court took cognizance against the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has falsely been implicated and the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., even if taken at their face value, do not constitute the offence alleged. He would submit that the relationship between the parties was purely consensual and developed in the backdrop of a proposed marriage which was being considered by both families. It is contended that there was no false promise or fraudulent intention on the part of the applicant from the very inception and the marriage could not materialize only due to subsequent family circumstances and differences between the parties. 6. He would further submit that the factum of marriage talks between the families is specifically reflected from the contents of the F.I.R. itself and, therefore, it cannot be inferred that the consent of respondent no.2 was obtained under any misconception of fact within the meaning of Section 90 I.P.C. Learned counsel would submit that the essential ingredient for constituting an offence under Section 376 I.P.C., namely, absence of free consent, is wholly lacking in the present matter. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that even after registration of the F.I.R., respondent no.2 and the applicant amicably resolved 2026:UHC:3683 their dispute and jointly approached this Court by filing a writ petition along with a compounding application. In the said application, it was specifically averred that both parties had entered into a physical relationship out of their own free will and consent and, owing to unavoidable circumstances, their relationship could not culminate into marriage. Though the Coordinate Bench declined to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise, the affidavit filed by respondent no.2 clearly demonstrates that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature and there was no element of coercion attributable to the applicant. 8. Learned counsel would further submit that during the course of investigation, the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2022 after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case. It is also contended that the dispute between the parties is essentially personal in nature arising out of a failed relationship and continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and would submit that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and the material collected during investigation disclose commission of cognizable offences and, therefore, the proceedings ought not to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2026:UHC:3683 10. This Court has considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. From the contents of the F.I.R. as well as the material collected during investigation, it transpires that the relationship between the applicant and respondent no.2 emanated from a pre- existing matrimonial understanding between their families and continued for a considerable period of time. The allegations themselves reveal that both parties were in a consensual relationship and the physical relations were established during the subsistence of such relationship. There is nothing on record to prima facie indicate that from the inception the applicant never intended to marry respondent no.2 or that the promise of marriage was a mere device to obtain consent for physical relations. 12. It is settled principle of law that every breach of promise to marry would not amount to rape unless it is established that the promise was false from the very beginning and was made only with the intention to deceive the victim. Where parties are in a consensual relationship and the marriage could not materialize due to subsequent circumstances, criminal prosecution under Section 376 I.P.C. would not ordinarily be sustainable. 13. In the present case, the admitted involvement of both families in matrimonial negotiations, the consensual nature of the relationship, and the subsequent affidavit filed by 2026:UHC:3683 respondent no.2 acknowledging that the relationship was voluntary, clearly indicate absence of fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the applicant at the inception of the relationship. Thus, the essential ingredients constituting an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. are not made out against the applicant. 14. This Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and no useful purpose would be served in permitting the same to continue. 15. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The chargesheet, cognizance/ summoning order dated 19.09.2022, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6496 of 2022 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, are hereby quashed. 16. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 12.05.2026 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=6a812005bebfcf46 f244f3e584af1449e430ef90 0bf09a6d67ebbd64267132 9b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f 1d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca 8b66dd26690a191648ab5d 8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.18 11:40:32 +05'30'