UKHC010105012026 2026:UHC:4954 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR/458/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present criminal revision has been filed to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 02.05.2026 passed by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2026 and the revisionist be discharged from all charges under Sections 69, 351(3) and 352 of B.N.S.. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that respondent no. 2/complainant filed an application under Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S. alleging therein that she came in contact with the revisionist through an online matrimonial platform with the object of exploring matrimonial prospects. It was alleged that the revisionist introduced himself as an Engineer working in a reputed company and represented that he was drawing an annual salary package of ₹50 lakhs; that, the complainant believed his representations and, during the course of their interactions, the revisionist professed his love for her and assured her that he would marry her. It was further alleged that UKHC010105012026 2026:UHC:4954 the revisionist took the complainant to a hotel at Mussoorie, poured sindoor on her forehead as a token of marriage and thereafter established physical relations with her. Subsequently, the revisionist refused to marry the complainant. On the directions of the learned Magistrate, an F.I.R. came to be registered against the revisionist under Sections 351(3), 352 and 64(1) of the B.N.S. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would further submit that, after completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 69, 351(3) and 352 of the B.N.S., whereupon the learned court below took cognizance of the offences; that, thereafter, the revisionist moved an application for discharge under Section 250 of the B.N.S.S. specifically contending that the material collected during investigation did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against him and that no prima facie case was made out, however, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Dehradun, vide the impugned order dated 02.05.2026, rejected the discharge application in a mechanical and routine manner without properly appreciating the material on record. 6. He would further submit that the revisionist is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case; that, during the course of their interactions, respondent no. 2 allegedly concealed her true identity and also suppressed the material fact that UKHC010105012026 2026:UHC:4954 she was a divorcee; that, these facts came to his knowledge only during subsequent conversations, as is evident from the WhatsApp chats exchanged between the parties; that, the hotel bookings were made with the knowledge, consent and active participation of the complainant and that the relationship between the parties was entirely consensual, however, due to certain differences and incompatibilities that subsequently arose between them, the proposed matrimonial alliance could not fructify and the revisionist ultimately expressed his unwillingness to proceed with the marriage. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel would vehemently oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the revisionist and would submit that the Investigating Officer, after conducting a fair and proper investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the revisionist and the learned trial court rightly took cognizance thereof; that, the learned court below has passed a reasoned and speaking order while rejecting the discharge application and that sufficient material exists on record to proceed against the revisionist; that, at the stage of consideration of discharge, the court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out and cannot embark upon a meticulous appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The submissions advanced on behalf UKHC010105012026 2026:UHC:4954 of the revisionist regarding concealment of material facts by the complainant, the voluntary nature of the relationship, the genuineness of the promise of marriage, and the reasons for non-fructification of the matrimonial proposal involve disputed questions of fact, which can only be adjudicated upon after the parties adduce evidence during trial. At the stage of discharge, the Court cannot conduct a mini trial or appreciate the probative value of the evidence on record. 10. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Dehradun has considered the material available in the case diary and assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application for discharge. The impugned order neither suffers from any jurisdictional error nor discloses any perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 443 of the B.N.S.S. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present criminal revision. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 17.06.2026 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=6a812005bebfcf46f 244f3e584af1449e430ef900 bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b , postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1 d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8 b66dd26690a191648ab5d8 dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.06.18 17:26:12 +05'30'