Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/645/2023 on 11 May, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No or directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPCRL 645/2023
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate, for
the petitioners.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, AGA, for the
State/respondents no. 1 and 2.
Ms. Reema Rana, Advocate, i/b
Mr. Abhishek Joshi, Advocate, for the
caveator/respondent no. 3.
(2) By means of this writ petition,
petitioners have sought quashing of FIR
No. 118 of 2023, under Section 376 IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, registered against
petitioners on 4.5.2023 in PS Mukhani,
Tehsil Halwani, District Nainital.
(3) As per the FIR, petitioner no. 1
made physical relations with the
complainant on the pretext of false
promise of marriage, but subsequently
he refused to marry her. It is further
alleged that refusal to marry the
complainant was on account of non-
fulfilment of demand of dowry made by
petitioners.
(4) It is contended by learned
Counsel for the petitioners that
petitioners had not only made all
necessary arrangements for marriage
including bookings and purchase of
garments, etc. in the months of February
and March 2023, but even invitation
cards were published and distributed. He
further submits that respondent no. 3
had claimed that she is unmarried, but it
was revealed subsequently that she got
decree of divorce on 18.3.2023 and this
fact came to the notice of petitioner only
in the month of April, 2023 and
thereafter marriage was cancelled and
the matter was also reported to police on
27.4.2023. It is also contended by
learned Counsel for petitioners that
petitioner no. 1 and complainant are
adults and whatever physical relations
they had, those were with mutual
consent. Thus learned Counsel for the
petitioners submits that from the
allegations made in the FIR and also
from the attending facts of
circumstances, it is apparent that this is
not a case of false promise but breach of
promise. Reliance has been placed on the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v.
State of Maharashtra, reported in (2019)
9 SCC 608.
(5) Ms. Reena Rana, learned
Counsel appearing for the complainant,
contended that it was well known to
petitioner no. 1 that complainant is a
divorcee and the allegation that he came
to know about it only in the month of
April, 2023 is incorrect. She further
submits that allegations made in the FIR
are serious in nature and petitioners are
not entitled to any protection from this
Court.
(6) As prayed for, let counter
affidavit be filed by all the respondents
within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if
any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
(7) List on 11.7.2023.
(8) Having heard learned Counsel
for the parties and considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, as an
interim measure, it is directed that till
the next date of listing, no coercive step
shall be taken against petitioners
pursuant to impugned FIR, provided they
cooperate in the investigation.
(9) Interim relief application
(IA/1/2023) stands disposed of.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
11.5.2023
Pr
