Uttarakhand High Court
Krishan Kumar @ Babbu & Ors. ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 25 September, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.993 of 2023
Krishan Kumar @ Babbu & Ors. .........Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .........Respondents
Mr. F.K. Jha with Mr. Ravi Bisht, Advocates for the applicants.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, AGA with Ms. Sweta Dobhal, Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, Legal Aid Counsel for respondent no.3.
Judgment Reserved on 03.07.2025
Judgment deliverved on 25.09.2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of this C-482 application, the applicant
is seeking to quash the charge-sheet dated 21.01.2023,
summoning order dated 15.02.2023 along with entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.1176 of 2023 (Crime No.54
of 2022) under Sections 313, 376(2)(n), 384, 506, 509 read
with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Nainital.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that an FIR was
registered by respondent no.3 against the applicants alleging
therein that applicant no.1 has committed sexual intercourse
with her on false pretext of marriage. She further alleged that
the applicant no.1 made her obscene videos and threatened
her that he will release those videos online if she took any
legal recourse. She also alleged that the mother and sister of
applicant no.1 also threatened her of dire consequences if she
took any legal recourse. On the basis of above report, an FIR
was registered under Sections 313, 376(2)(n), 384, 506, 509
read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
FIR is frivolous and is based upon pure malice and upon
concocted set of facts. He further submits that respondent
no.3 is an adult lady of around 30 years of age and is an
MBA graduate working in a private consultancy firm.
Therefore, it is hard to believe that she entered into sexual
intercourse on the basis of alleged deception. He further
submitted that applicant no.1 and respondent no.3 met
through Shaadi.com and after developing friendship
voluntarily met at various places and entered into consensual
sexual relations. But, thereafter, they developed strained
relations as applicant no.1 lost his job and was no longer able
to fulfill monetary demand of respondent no.3. Therefore,
respondent no.3 got enraged and filed a vengeful and false
FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently
argues that the vengeful conduct of respondent no.3 can
clearly be seen from the facts that she lodged multiple
FIRs/complaints in different police stations including
Bhowali. He further argues that first such complaint was
filed by her in Mahila Thana Police Station of District SAS
Nagar, Punjab where after detailed inquiry and recording
statements of respondent no.3 and applicant no.1 and after
going through WhatsApp chats, mails, voice recording, bank
records of funds transferred by applicant no.1 to respondent
no.3, hotel bills and i-phone gifted by applicant no.1 to
respondent no.3 exonerated applicant no.1. But, even
thereafter, respondent no.3 wreak vengeance got malicious
report published in different newspaper at Fatehabad to
tarnish the image of the applicants. As a result, police
officials from Fatehabad also started troubling him, but
applicant no.1 informed the police officials of Fatehabad
regarding the closure of proceedings on same set of facts in
SAS Nagar, Punjab. Thereafter, the Fatehabad police
officials did not continue the proceedings, but again, the
applicant no.1 got arrested by Bhowali Police on FIR
registered under same set of facts and the Bhowali Police
submitted the impugned charge-sheet on furtherance of
which the impugned summoning order was issued by the
learned Judicial Magistrate.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State
relying upon his counter affidavit submitted that the
impugned charge-sheet was submitted after a detailed
investigation and recording the statement of the victim under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that on
investigating, it was found out that applicant no.1 to incite
respondent no.3 to enter into physical relations applied
vermillion on her forehead and on the basis of these findings,
learned Judicial Magistrate committed no error in taking
cognizance against the applicants and thereby summoning
them. He further stated that it has been time and again held
by Hon'ble Apex Court that a criminal proceeding should not
be quashed at nascent stage, if prima facie case is made out
against the applicants.
6. Respondent no.3 in her counter affidavit
submitted that she and applicant no.1 met through
Shaadi.com and applicant no.1 to gain her confidence even
made her talk to his mother and sister and very cunningly on
the pretext that both of them should get an opportunity to
know each other better somehow induced her to travel with
him to Temple of Neem Karoli Baba and made forceful
sexual relations with her on that trip. Thereafter, when they
were travelling to Haridwar and she denied to make physical
relations, but he again cheated her. He put vermillion on her
forehead and again made sexual relations with her. She
further submitted that as applicant no.1 has connections with
strong political persons of Pubjab, he used his influence to
close the case registered in SAS Nagar, Punjab.
7. Applicant no.1 in his rejoinder affidavit submitted
that the complainant i.e. respondent no.3 visited multiple
places with him and voluntarily established physical relations
which is not a crime. He further submitted that Hon'ble
Apex Court in multiple judgments viz. Jothiragawan vs. State
represented by Inspector of Police and another, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 628 and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs.
State of Maharshtra and others, (2019) 18 SCC 191, has
stated that romantic relationship turning sour should not be a
ground for criminal prosecution.
8. Having heard the rival contentions of learned
counsel for the parties and after going through the material
available on record and perusal of FIR, charge-sheet and
statement of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations
leveled against the applicants are heinous in nature and the
conduct of applicant no.1 of putting vermilion in respondent
no.3 forehead clearly shows that he deceived her to enter into
physical relations. Moreover, as the case in hand consists of
twisted facts the veracity of which could only be found out
after a proper trial. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to
use its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the impugned
charge-sheet and summoning order. Moreover, Hon'ble
Apex Court also in plethora of judgments has opined that
High Court should be slow in interfering in criminal cases, if
a prima facie case is established against the applicants.
9. 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 subparas 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;
33.16 The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or
the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the
High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing
petition in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC
and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the
pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with
circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to
be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically.
Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts
are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the
High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from
passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive
steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to
apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438CrPC before
the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such
is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or
"no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till
the investigation is completed and/or till the final
report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while
dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section
482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India."
10. After keeping the following principles in mind
this court does not deem it fit to quash the impugned FIR,
charge-sheet. Accordingly, the present C-482 application is
dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
25.09.2025
Ravi
