Uttarakhand High Court
Shanu Chauhan @ Ankit Chauhan vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 14 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1738 of 2022
Shanu Chauhan @ Ankit Chauhan ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. .....Respondents
Present:
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State..
Date of order: 14.09.2022
Sri S.K. Mishra, J.
Heard.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought
quashing of the FIR dated 06.09.2022, registered as FIR
No. 467 of 2022, under Sections 376(2)(n), 504 and 506
of the Penal Code, at P.S. Sidcul, District Haridwar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that there are relationships between the petitioner and
complainant for five years and that he never denied to
marry the complainant. However, the learned counsel
for the petitioner on being specifically asked by the
Court whether he is ready to marry the complainant at
this stage, he evasively answered the question by
stating that petitioner is preparing for government job.
4. An examination of the FIR clearly reveals offence
under Section 376(2)(n), 504 and 506 of the Penal
Code, and also the offence under the provisions of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 against the
petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely
upon the un-reported case decided by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. The State
of Uttarakhand, passed in CRLA No. 442 of 2022 on
dated 27.07.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has quashed the FIR lodged under Section 376 of the
Penal Code by observing as follows:-
"We are fortified to adopt this course of action by the
judicial view in (2019) 9 SCC 608 titled "Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr." where
in the factual scenario where complainant was aware that
there existed obstacles in marrying the accused and still
continued to engage in sexual relations, the Supreme
Court quashed the FIR. A distinction was made between a
false promise to marriage which is given on understanding
by the maker that it will be broken and a breach of
promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not
fulfilled. This was in the context of Section 375 Explanation
2 and Section 90 of the IPC, 1860."
6. A plain reading of the judgment would reveal that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the
complainant is consented to sexual relations even when
she was aware of the impediment and obstacles in
marrying the accused, the FIR should be quashed.
Such case is not here. Not only the petitioner has kept
relationship with the complainant for long time on the
false pretext of marriage but also threatened her and
her brother to upload some objectionable videos and
photographs in the internet through facebook and other
social media.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
opinion that there is hardly any scope to interfere in
this case. Thus, the writ petition stands dismissed in
limine.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)
(Grant certified copy as per Rules.)
PV
