2026:UHC:4271 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482 No.1719 of 2016 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Present C-528 application is filed with the prayer to set-aside/quash the charge sheet dated 30.04.2014, summoning order dated 30.09.2014 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2456 of 2014, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun. 3. Respondent no.2 initially submitted a complaint dated 14.08.2013 against the applicant alleging therein that both the applicant and respondent no.2 came into contact with each other in the year 2010 and developed friendly relations. Since the applicant was pursuing his B.Tech. course, he allegedly assured respondent no.2 that after completion of his studies he would marry her. It is further alleged that the applicant also made assurances of marriage before a temple, thereby inducing respondent no.2 to repose faith in him. According to the allegations, on 10.10.2010, the applicant took respondent no.2 to a hotel, administered an intoxicating substance in her cold drink and thereafter committed rape upon her in the hotel room. It is further alleged that thereafter respondent no.2 went to reside at her brother’s place at Palia, 2026:UHC:4271 Uttar Pradesh, however, the applicant remained in continuous contact with her. Upon her return to Vikas Nagar, till 06.06.2013, the applicant allegedly continued physical relations with respondent no.2 on the pretext of marriage. Subsequently, when respondent no.2 and her family members requested the applicant to solemnize marriage, he allegedly refused. Since no action was taken on the aforesaid complaint, respondent no.2 lodged the F.I.R. on 22.09.2013. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the applicant, upon which learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the applicant to face trial. Hence, the present application. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned summoning order has been passed mechanically and without due application of judicial mind, inasmuch as, learned Magistrate has failed to record any reasons while taking cognizance and issuing summons, rendering the order wholly non-speaking in nature. It is further submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel contends that there are material contradictions and improvements in the version of respondent no.2, as the allegation regarding the alleged incident of rape committed in the hotel on 10.10.2010 does not find place in the F.I.R. and instead the date of incident is mentioned as 17.02.2013 and material discrepancies exist with regard to the dates of the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the investigation suffers from serious infirmities and 2026:UHC:4271 lapses. No independent witness pertaining to the alleged incident in the hotel has been cited in the charge-sheet. Neither the hotel manager nor any hotel staff, including the waiter, has been examined by the Investigating Officer. No CCTV footage of the hotel was collected, nor was the hotel register seized or verified to establish the presence of either the applicant or respondent no.2 in the hotel on the alleged date of occurrence. It is also contended that no Call Detail Records (CDRs) pertaining to the mobile numbers referred to in the F.I.R. were collected or filed along with the charge-sheet so as to substantiate the allegation of continuous contact between the parties. 5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case, inasmuch as, the doctor concerned has opined that no definite opinion regarding sexual intercourse could be given. Moreover, no external or internal injury was found on the person of respondent no.2 during medical examination. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is argued that the entire prosecution case is unsupported by cogent or reliable evidence and continuation of the criminal proceedings against the applicant would amount to abuse of the process of law. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. At the outset, it is evident that the relationship between the applicant and respondent no.2, as reflected from the F.I.R. itself, was consensual in nature and continued over a substantial period from 2010 to 2013. The prosecution version discloses that the parties remained in continuous 2026:UHC:4271 contact and maintained physical relations for years together. In such circumstances, no prima facie material is available on record to demonstrate that at the inception itself the applicant had any dishonest intention or that the alleged promise of marriage was false from the very beginning so as to attract the ingredients of Section 376 I.P.C. on the basis of misconception of fact. This Court further notes that there are significant improvements and contradictions in the prosecution story. The allegation regarding the alleged incident of rape in a hotel on 10.10.2010 does not find place in the F.I.R. and instead the date of incident is mentioned as 17.02.2013. The investigation also suffers from material omissions, inasmuch as, no independent witness from the alleged place of occurrence has been examined. Neither hotel records, CCTV footage, nor visitor registers have been collected to corroborate the presence of the parties at the alleged time of incident. Similarly, Call Detail Records, which could have substantiated continuous contact between the parties, have not been brought on record. The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case, as the doctor has not given any definite opinion regarding sexual assault and no external or internal injuries were found on the person of respondent no.2. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra & another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230, has held that a consensual relationship subsequently turning sour, or the parties drifting apart, cannot by itself furnish a ground for setting the criminal law in motion. The 2026:UHC:4271 Court observed that such prosecutions not only unnecessarily burden the criminal justice system, but also seriously tarnish the reputation and dignity of an individual accused of a grave offence like one under Section 376 I.P.C. Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against the misuse of such provisions and has categorically held that every breach of a promise to marry cannot ipso facto be construed as a false promise so as to attract prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. 8. In light of the settled position of law that consensual relationships turning sour cannot be mechanically converted into criminal prosecution for rape, and considering the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioning against misuse of criminal process, this Court is of the view that the prosecution lacks foundational material. 9. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2456 of 2014, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, are hereby quashed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 29.05.2026 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=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445 e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C51 09CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.05.29 16:47:53 +05'30'