Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8754 (UTT)

Gurpal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2026-02-18

Ashish Naithani

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ashish Naithani, J. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 05.04.2022 and the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2022, “State of Uttarakhand vs. Gurpal Singh”, pending before the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh. 2. The said Sessions Trial arises out of FIR No. 0001 of 2022, registered at Police Station Berinag, District Pithoragarh, for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Applicant contends that even if the allegations contained in the FIR, the charge sheet, and the statements of the prosecutrix are taken at their face value, no offence as alleged is made out, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 4. The Applicant- Gurpal Singh, aged about 23 years, is serving in the Indian Army in 10 Sikh Light Infantry Regiment and is stated to be a law-abiding citizen. 5. FIR No. 0001 of 2022 was lodged on 12.01.2022 by Respondent No. 3, alleging commission of offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Applicant and the prosecutrix became acquainted through social media in the year 2019 and were in contact thereafter. 6. It is alleged that the Applicant proposed marriage to the prosecutrix, on the basis of which she left her parental home and accompanied him. The allegation further is that instead of marrying her, the Applicant took her to a hotel, where physical relations were established, and subsequently refused to marry her. 7. During investigation, the statements of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were recorded. The statement of her father was also recorded. A supplementary medical report dated 23.02.2022 was prepared during the course of investigation. 8. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet dated 05.04.2022 was filed against the Applicant under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, pursuant to which Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2022 was instituted before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh. 9. The Applicant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.06.2022. Subsequently, an order dated 23.06.2022 was passed by the trial court, which has been relied upon by the Applicant to contend that the prosecutrix was not willing to marry the Applicant. 10. 9. The Applicant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.06.2022. Subsequently, an order dated 23.06.2022 was passed by the trial court, which has been relied upon by the Applicant to contend that the prosecutrix was not willing to marry the Applicant. 10. The Applicant asserts that the material on record discloses a consensual relationship between two adults, that the essential ingredients of Sections 366 and 376 IPC are not satisfied, and that the criminal proceedings have been initiated with oblique motives. 11. On these premises, the present application has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 13. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that even if the allegations contained in the FIR, charge sheet, and statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC are accepted at their face value, the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC are not made out. 14. It was contended that the material on record itself discloses a consensual relationship between two adults, and that the prosecutrix left her parental home of her own volition, thereby negativing the offence under Section 366 IPC. 15. Learned counsel argued that the prosecution case is founded on an alleged promise of marriage which was not fulfilled, and there is no material to suggest that such promise was false from the inception so as to vitiate consent. 16. It was submitted that the medical and documentary material does not support the allegation of forcible sexual assault, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC. 17. Learned Brief Holder for the State opposed the application and submitted that the FIR and the statements of the prosecutrix, when read as a whole, prima facie disclose the commission of offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. 18. It was argued that the prosecutrix has alleged inducement on the assurance of marriage followed by sexual exploitation, and such allegations raise disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. 19. Learned counsel submitted that the charge sheet has been filed after due investigation and that the truthfulness of the allegations must be tested during trial. 20. 19. Learned counsel submitted that the charge sheet has been filed after due investigation and that the truthfulness of the allegations must be tested during trial. 20. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 supported the case of the State and submitted that the prosecutrix was emotionally induced into leaving her home on the assurance of marriage, which was subsequently withdrawn. 21. It was contended that the prosecutrix has consistently maintained her allegations and that the Applicant cannot seek quashing merely on the ground that he was at one stage willing to marry her. 22. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is of an exceptional nature and is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. At the same time, where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected during investigation do not disclose the commission of any offence, this Court would be failing in its duty if it declines to intervene. 23. In the present case, the prosecution originates from FIR No. 0001 of 2022, alleging offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, arising out of a relationship between the Applicant and Respondent No. 3 which admittedly commenced in the year 2019. The record itself reflects that the parties were known to each other for a considerable period prior to the lodging of the FIR. 24. A careful reading of the FIR, as well as the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, reveals that the gravamen of the allegations is that the prosecutrix accompanied the Applicant on the assurance of marriage, and that physical relations were established thereafter, followed by the Applicant’s refusal to marry her. 25. Significantly, the material on record does not disclose any allegation of force, threat, coercion, or deceit practiced at the inception of the relationship. The prosecutrix does not allege that she was abducted or compelled to leave her home against her will. On the contrary, the consistent version emerging from the record is that she left her parental home voluntarily and accompanied the Applicant. 26. In such circumstances, the essential ingredient of “taking” or “enticing” so as to constitute an offence under Section 366 IPC is prima facie absent. On the contrary, the consistent version emerging from the record is that she left her parental home voluntarily and accompanied the Applicant. 26. In such circumstances, the essential ingredient of “taking” or “enticing” so as to constitute an offence under Section 366 IPC is prima facie absent. Mere accompaniment of a consenting adult, without any element of compulsion or deception at the threshold, does not satisfy the statutory requirement of the offence. 27. As regards the offence under Section 376 IPC, the law is by now well settled that sexual relations on a promise of marriage would amount to rape only if it is shown that the promise was false from the very inception and was made with the sole intention of obtaining consent. A subsequent refusal to marry, howsoever reprehensible from a moral standpoint, does not ipso facto vitiate consent in law. 28. The statements of the prosecutrix, when read as a whole, do not disclose any circumstance from which it can be inferred that the Applicant never intended to marry her at the inception of the relationship. The record does not reflect any material suggesting fraudulent intent at the threshold, as opposed to a relationship that later failed. 29. The supplementary medical report dated 23.02.2022, when examined in conjunction with the statements on record, also does not lend support to the allegation of forcible sexual assault. At this stage, without entering into a roving enquiry, it is sufficient to note that the medical material does not corroborate the prosecution version in a manner that would prima facie attract Section 376 IPC. 30 . This Court is conscious of the submission made on behalf of the State that disputed questions of fact ought to be left for trial. However, where the foundational facts, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of an offence, compelling an accused to undergo the rigours of trial would itself amount to an abuse of the process of law. 31. The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is not intended to short-circuit legitimate prosecutions, but equally, it cannot be rendered illusory by compelling continuation of proceedings which are manifestly attended with legal infirmity. Criminal law cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for settling personal scores arising out of failed relationships. 32. 31. The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is not intended to short-circuit legitimate prosecutions, but equally, it cannot be rendered illusory by compelling continuation of proceedings which are manifestly attended with legal infirmity. Criminal law cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for settling personal scores arising out of failed relationships. 32. Viewed thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case falls within the category of matters where continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would result in undue harassment of the Applicant. 33. Consequently, the charge sheet dated 05.04.2022 and the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2022, pending before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, cannot be sustained in law. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the Applicant would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC is allowed . The charge sheet dated 05.04.2022, arising out of FIR No. 0001 of 2022, Police Station Berinag, District Pithoragarh, and the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2022, pending before the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, for offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, are hereby quashed.