Gokulanand Salwasi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2665 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Gokulanand Salwasi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 22 August, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                  1




                        Judgment reserved on: 06.08.2025
                       Judgment delivered on: 22.08.2025

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

 Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.226 of 2022

Gokulanand Salwasi                                    ......Applicant
                                 Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another                  .....Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:

Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent No.1.

Mr. Asif Ali and Ms. Nisha Dhami, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per)

By means for the present C482 application, the applicant has put to challenge the cognizance/summoning order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gangolihaat, District Pithoragarh, in Criminal Case No.18 of 2021, State Vs. Gokulanand Salwasi, under Section 376 IPC, as well as the entire proceedings of the aforementioned Criminal Case.

2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.0025 of 2020 was lodged by respondent No.2 against the applicant on 11.11.2020 at P.S. Berinaag, District Pithoragarh, alleging therein that the applicant had committed rape upon her on several occasions under the false pretext of marriage. On the basis of the said FIR, investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant under Section 376 IPC on 01.01.2021, in furtherance of which, learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant for trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations leveled by respondent No.2 are false and do not disclose the commission of any offence under Section 376 IPC against the applicant for the reason that the victim/respondent No.2 herself consented to develop the physical relationship and further she had never raised her grievance almost for two and a half year. He further submits that the respondent No.2 is elder in age to the applicant and it appears improbable that a person older than the applicant could be deceived by him on the false pretext of marriage.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in (2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 608 and in the case of Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs. The State of West Bengal and Another, reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 741, wherein it is held that the mere fact of sexual intercourse on multiple occasions, along with a promise of marriage, does not amount to rape unless it is shown that the promise was made with a dishonest intent from the very beginning.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet in a routine manner without proper investigation and even the Investigating Officer did not record the statements of parents of the respondent No.2. It is further contended by him that the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), without application of judicial mind and in a very routine manner, has taken cognizance upon the applicant.

6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the Investigating Officer only after conducting a proper investigation and recording the statements of the

complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C., submitted the charge-sheet and learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) after considering the prima-facie evidence rightly took the cognizance, and thereafter summoned the applicant.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed counter affidavit, on the basis of which, they submit that all the facts stated by the respondent No.2 in the FIR are real and true. She, under the bonafide impression that the applicant would marry her, engaged in a physical relationship with the applicant and for this reason, did not raise any grievance before any authority at the relevant time. They also placed reliance upon Para 14 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Anurag Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No.629 of 2019 dated 09.04.2019, to substantiate their submission.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submitted that a compromise also took between the respondent No.2 and the father of applicant, in which, he gave a handwritten letter on behalf of applicant to the concerned Police Station in presence of respective witnesses, yet the applicant refused to marry respondent No.2 without giving any justification.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations in the present matter pertain to a heinous offence. The FIR was lodged within a period of two months from the last sexual intercourse between the applicant and the respondent No.2; delay of two months in lodging the FIR alleging rape is self explanatory in nature and can't be termed as inordinate delay. It is further noted that in matters of rape, much is at stake-not only the dignity and reputation of the victim but also that of her family

members. Having regard to the background and standing of the victim's family, there appears no apparent reason to lodge a false FIR merely to implicate the applicant. Furthermore, the material on record reflects that the alleged incident occurred when the respondent No.2 was merely 22 years of age. At that stage, she was not so mature in life experience as to be excluded from any emotional influence and it cannot be said that she would have anticipated all the consequences of her actions. Further, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicant on certain case laws referred in Para-4 of this judgment, is also misplaced. The facts of those cases are distinguishable in those matters, the FIR had been lodged after an inordinate delay, in some, the applicant was already married and in another, the decision not to marry arose from caste differences. None of those circumstances have occurred in the present matter. Moreover, the record makes it probable that the complainant was induced into a physical relationship under the false pretext of marriage. In rural settings, particularly in a State like Uttarakhand, false allegations of rape are uncommon given the severe social stigma and the risk to the honour and standing of the victim's family. Therefore, this Court finds that the present matter does not fall within the category of "rarest of rare" cases warranting the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

10. Since, the offence alleged against the applicant is very serious in nature and prima-facie made out a case against the applicant, it is essential for the ends of justice that the applicant should be subjected to a proper trial. Recently, in the case of Neeharika, Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that criminal case shall not be scuttled

at the initial stage. Relevant sub-paras of Para 33 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:-

"33.4) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the "rarest of rare cases" (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

33.5) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

33.6) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

33.15) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

11. After keeping the above principle in mind, this Court is of the opinion that as prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and the charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicant was summoned after cognizance, this Court cannot enter into merits of the case at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only be proved during trial, after both the parties would adduce their respective evidences.

12. Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed.

13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 22.08.2025 PN