Harjender Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 319 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Harjender Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 13 May, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                        2025:UHC:3805
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
     Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1683 of 2022
Harjender Singh                                          --Applicant
                          Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another                      --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
       Mr. Manish Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vipul
       Sharma, learned counsel for applicant.
       Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal and
       Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned Brief Holders for the State of
       Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
       Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has challenged the cognizance/summoning order dated 30.05.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.429 of 2022 State Vs. Harjender Singh, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 has lodged an FIR on 22.06.2021 being FIR No.230 of 2021 against the applicant alleging therein that the applicant had duped the respondent No.2 since 2015 for marriage and had made sexual relations with respondent No.2 against her wishes and now he was not willing to marry the respondent No.2.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. clearly reveals that no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. The statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are the improvement to the FIR and 161 Cr.P.C. statements. A falsity of the said statements can be ascertained by the facts that no such alleged video

2025:UHC:3805 whatsoever has been recovered from the applicant and the story has merely been improved just to implicate the applicant in a false matter.

5. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has never raped the respondent No.2, there was a consensual relationship between them. He placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46, wherein, it is held that the prosecutrix has given consent to sexual intercourse with the accused with whom she was deeply in love, on a promise that he would marry her on a later date. The prosecutrix continued to meet the accused and often had sexual intercourse and became pregnant. A complaint was lodged on failure of the accused to marry her. It was held that consent cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact. He placed reliance upon Para 21 and Para 23 of the said judgment.

6. Per contra, learned State Counsel contends in its counter affidavit that the the Investigating Officer on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidences, medical report and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., found cogent and credible evidence against the applicant, therefore, filed the charge-sheet under Setion 376 IPC. He further submits that Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments hold that in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court will not enter into any finding of facts or hold a parallel trial.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 in its counter affidavit stated that prima-facie the offence under Section 376 IPC is made out against the applicant. The FIR was filed by respondent No.2 after refusal to fulfill the promise of marriage by the applicant and under the

2025:UHC:3805 misconception of the fact of marriage, applicant continuously had sexual intercourse with the respondent No.2 against her will and without her consent. It is further contended that in the year 2015, when the applicant first time did promise of marriage to the deponent and made sexual relation with respondent No.2, she was minor. Applicant is making a futile and baseless attempt to concoct a fig-leaf of defense for his heinous and unconscionable offence under Section 376 of IPC by misleading the fact. It is also contended that the facts of the judgment which was rendered by learned counsel for the applicant and the facts of the present case are different.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on record, it transpires that prima-facie from the FIR, the offence alleged against the applicant, is made out and there are various disputed question of facts. This Court while invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot go into the disputed question of facts as alleged. In order to make out a case for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant has to satisfy the Court that even if the entirety of the case of the prosecution has taken as true, no case is made out. But, here this is not a case, therefore, this Court doesn't incline to interfere into the matter.

9. Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed.

10. Interim order dated 20.09.2022 stands vacated.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 13.05.2025 PN PREETI

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH

2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331ba c55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001,

NEGI st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064 498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.05.14 14:56:20 +05'30'