Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3730 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2087 of 2022

Faisal Raza Usmani

                                                        ........... Applicant

                                      Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another

                                                       ........ Respondents



Present : Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.
          Mr. Lalit Miglani, AGA for the State.
          Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Advocate for the respondent no. 2.



                                JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the

charge sheet dated 16.11.2019, cognizance/summoning

order dated 21.03.2020 passed in Criminal Case No. 1871

of 2020, State v. Faisal Raza, under Sections 376, 504,

506 IPC, by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham

Singh Nagar ("the case"), as well as the entire proceedings

of the case, on the basis of amicable settlement between

the parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The case is based on an FIR lodged by the

respondent no. 2 ("the informant") against the petitioner

on 17.09.2019. According to it, the informant and the

petitioner were known to each other for four years prior to

lodging of the FIR. The petitioner established physical

relations with the informant under the pretext of marriage

and continued it on multiple times, but subsequently, he

declined to marry.

4. A joint compounding application has been filed

by the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 2,

supported by the affidavits.

5. It is the case of the parties that now both the

petitioner and the informant are married.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the

informant would submit that both the petitioner and the

informant are staying together. It is submitted that, in

fact, both the petitioner and the informant had engaged,

but due to some misunderstanding, the marriage could

not be solemnized and in the meanwhile the FIR has been

lodged.

7. It is a case based on the averments that under

the pretext of marriage, physical relations were

established and subsequently the petitioner declined to

marry. It is being stated that, in fact, it was not under any

pretext of marriage but the petitioner also wanted to

marry the informant; he did not marry any other woman;

now they are married.

8. A case of rape as such cannot be decided in

terms of the compromise. But, instant is not a case of

rape as such. It is a case in which the allegation is that

the consent of the informant was obtained under

misconception of fact. What is being submitted that there

is no misconception of fact. The petitioner had then

promised the informant to marry and he has married her.

It is because of some misunderstanding that the FIR was

lodged.

9. The petitioner, as identified by Mr. D.S. Mehta,

Advocate and the informant, as identified by Mr. N.K.

Papnoi, Advocate are before the Court. They have verified

the contents of the compounding application. In fact, it is

stated that their marriage has already been settled.

10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that

it is a case which may be decided on the basis of amicable

settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the petition

deserves to be allowed.

11. The petition is allowed. The charge sheet dated

16.11.2019, cognizance/summoning order dated

21.03.2020 as well as the entire proceeding of the case are

hereby quashed.

12. Compounding application No. 1 of 2022 stands

disposed of accordingly.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 22.11.2022 Avneet/