Sampurna Lal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2449 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sampurna Lal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 20 March, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1745 of 2023
                        20th March, 2025


Sampurna Lal                                         .......Applicant
                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand & another                  .........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Vipul Painuli, B.H. for the State.
Mr. Mohit Bhauryal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Aditya Singh,
Advocate for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

This criminal misc. application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.446 of 2023 (Case Crime No.3 of 2023) for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC, pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Srinagar, Pauri- Garhwal.

2. Genesis of the F.I.R., lodged by respondent no.2, is that on 05.06.2022, she got engaged with the applicant. Later on, on 25th and 26th June, 2022, applicant called respondent no.2 in his room and established physical relations with her, after some time the applicant refused to marry her.

3. On 20.12.2022 an application in writing was given by respondent no.2 before the Women Police Station, Srinagar, against the applicant, where on 21.12.2022 the applicant gave an application, in writing, to solemnize marriage with respondent no.2. Then again, on 03.03.2023, the applicant gave in writing before the

Women Police Station, Srinagar that he would be sending his parents at the house of respondent no.2 for having talks of marriage, but he refused for the same later on. With these allegations the aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged.

4. The matter was investigated and on completion of the same a charge sheet was submitted against the applicant under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC.

5. On basis of the said charge sheet the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Srinagar, Pauri- Garhwal took cognizance against the applicant, in respect of the aforesaid offences, and summoned the applicant to face the trial.

6. On 17.08.2023 when the applicant after sufficient service of summons did not appear, the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Srinagar, Pauri- Garhwal issued bailable warrant of ₹10,000/- against the applicant. Challenging all these proceedings, the applicant has filed this C482 application.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein reiterating contents of the F.I.R. and denying the averments of C482 application, it has been stated that when the applicant, after establishing physical relations with respondent no.2, subsequent to their engagement, refused to solemnize marriage, the F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no.2. Since the offences against the applicant were, prima facie, proved, hence the charge sheet under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC was submitted against him in the court. Along with the counter affidavit, statements of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also annexed, wherein also respondent no.2

has stated that the applicant established physical relations with her after their engagement, but, subsequently, he refused to marry her. The Medical Report of the victim is also annexed with the counter affidavit.

8. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 in his counter affidavit has stated that the F.I.R. lodged by respondent no.2 is based on true and correct facts and the Investigating Officer collected credible evidence, and thereafter Magistrate correctly summoned the accused. The respondent no.2 claims that the accused made promises of marriage, distributed invitation cards (annexure CA-2), and established physical relations with the respondent, but the accused never fulfilled the terms.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant in his rejoinder affidavit submits that the F.I.R. is malicious, denying any kind of sexual relationship with respondent no.2, claiming that respondent no.2 fabricated evidence and coerced any compromise. Respondent no.2 herself initially refused the marriage. He also claims that respondent no.2 repeatedly changed her stance on the marriage, initially refusing and then pressurizing for it. There is also inordinate delay in filing the F.I.R. and the lack of credible evidence in the charge sheet.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record.

11. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that no offence is made out against the applicant; F.I.R. has been

lodged by respondent no.2 just to exert pressure upon the applicant to solemnize marriage; and the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.

12. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2, vehemently, argued that the applicant has established physical relations with the victim on the pretext of tying the knot, after the ring ceremony was solemnized between the parties. Even thereafter, when the report was lodged by the victim before the Women Police Station, Srinagar, applicant gave in writing that he would solemnize marriage with respondent no.2, but later on again he reiterated his refusal. Even the invitation cards were got printed by the family of respondent no.2.

13. In order to explore the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties, this Court called both the parties and sent them for the purpose of mediation before the Mediator of High Court Mediation Centre.

14. As per the report of Mediator - attempts were made to settle the dispute between the parties; but to no avail - and thus they could not reach to an amicable settlement. Accordingly mediation proceedings were held to be unsuccessful.

15. In support of his case, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following authorities of the Apex Court:-

1. Vijay Shukla Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, Criminal Misc. Application No.730 of 2022.

2. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of

Maharashtra and another, reported in, (2019) 9 SCC 608.

3. Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in, (2019) 18 SCC 191.

4. Shivashankar alias Shiva Vs. State of Karnataka and another, reported in, (2019) 18 SCC

204.

5. Sonu alias Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2021) 18 SCC 517.

16. Learned counsel for the applicant has, emphatically, argued that this is a case relates to false promise of marriage. Since the parties had entered into an engagement ceremony, therefore, it was a consensual act on the part of the victim for establishing physical relations with the applicant. Thus, the applicant cannot be punished.

17. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2, while strongly opposing the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant, has argued that the applicant established physical relation with the victim just after 20 days of their engagement. Subsequent thereto the applicant refused to marry. When respondent no.2 approached the Women Police Station, Srinagar seeking redressal of her grievance, the applicant gave in writing that he would be marrying her, but again he refused to do so. When the application was once again given by respondent no.2 before the Women Police Station, the applicant again gave in writing that he would be sending his parents to house of respondent no.2 in and around Holi festival.

18. Thus it is submitted that in such situation, it can be gathered that there was no consent at all on the part of respondent no.2 to establish physical relations

with the applicant.

19. I have carefully gone through the case-laws cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. In the given factual background, these are not applicable to the case of the applicant. In so far as the question of consent on the part of respondent no.2 is concerned, it is trite that when promise to marry is false and intention of maker at the time of making promise itself was not to abide by it, but to deceive a woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is some misconception of fact, which ultimately vitiates woman's consent. Thus, no question of victim's consent arises and accordingly the argument advanced on behalf of applicant raising a question mark on the consent of the victim is liable to be and is accordingly discarded.

20. When the Court tried to make efforts for amicable settlement between the parties, the applicant initially submitted that he would be marrying respondent no.2 and the matter was sent to High Court Mediation Centre, however, the applicant did not honour his previous undertaking and again refused to marry, which reflects the mal-intention on the part of applicant and thus the mediation proceedings between the parties resulted into a failure.

21. Although learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon certain authorities of the Apex Court in support of his case, but here in the case in hand only charge sheet has been filed and the accused has been summoned to put forward his defense case.

22. The veracity of the prosecution story is yet to

be culled out which can only be done after the evidence of prosecution witness and that of accused is recorded and when they are subjected to cross-examination.

23. At this stage, merely on the basis of summoning order of the applicant, it cannot be deduced that there was no fault on his part. This Court is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry that the allegations made in the body of the F.I.R. are true or not. This Court is only supposed to prima facie reach to a conclusion whether the offences alleged against the applicant are made out or not.

24. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that this matter requires a thorough examination which can only be done before a competent trial court having jurisdiction over the matter. Moreover the authorities upon which reliance has been placed before the learned counsel for the applicant, can well be produced by him before the trial court, which in light of the facts and circumstances of the case can be well appreciated.

25. The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion results into failing of the present C482 application and the same is accordingly dismissed.

26. Interim order dated 29.08.2023 passed by this Court is hereby vacated.

27. Since the matter relates to the year 2022 the trial court is directed to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law, expeditiously.

28. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to concerned trial court for forthwith compliance.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 20.03.2025 SK