[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Gurpal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1097
Judgement Reserved on: 15.12.2025
Judgement Delivered on: 18.02.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1075 of 2022
Gurpal Singh ......Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Lalit Belwal and Mr. Ashish Belwal, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Mohd. Matloob, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 (victim).
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of
the charge sheet dated 05.04.2022 and the entire proceedings of Sessions
Trial No. 14 of 2022, "State of Uttarakhand vs. Gurpal Singh", pending
before the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh.
2. The said Sessions Trial arises out of FIR No. 0001 of 2022,
registered at Police Station Berinag, District Pithoragarh, for offences
punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The Applicant contends that even if the allegations contained in
the FIR, the charge sheet, and the statements of the prosecutrix are taken at
their face value, no offence as alleged is made out, and continuation of the
criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the
Court.
1
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1075 of 2022-----Gurpal Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and
Others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1097
4. The Applicant- Gurpal Singh, aged about 23 years, is serving in
the Indian Army in 10 Sikh Light Infantry Regiment and is stated to be a
law-abiding citizen.
5. FIR No. 0001 of 2022 was lodged on 12.01.2022 by Respondent
No. 3, alleging commission of offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Applicant and the prosecutrix
became acquainted through social media in the year 2019 and were in
contact thereafter.
6. It is alleged that the Applicant proposed marriage to the
prosecutrix, on the basis of which she left her parental home and
accompanied him. The allegation further is that instead of marrying her,
the Applicant took her to a hotel, where physical relations were
established, and subsequently refused to marry her.
7. During investigation, the statements of the prosecutrix under
Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were recorded. The statement of her father
was also recorded. A supplementary medical report dated 23.02.2022 was
prepared during the course of investigation.
8. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet dated
05.04.2022 was filed against the Applicant under Sections 366 and 376
IPC, pursuant to which Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2022 was instituted before
the learned District and Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh.
9. The Applicant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated
21.06.2022. Subsequently, an order dated 23.06.2022 was passed by the
trial court, which has been relied upon by the Applicant to contend that the
prosecutrix was not willing to marry the Applicant.
10. The Applicant asserts that the material on record discloses a
consensual relationship between two adults, that the essential ingredients
2
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1075 of 2022-----Gurpal Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and
Others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1097
of Sections 366 and 376 IPC are not satisfied, and that the criminal
proceedings have been initiated with oblique motives.
11. On these premises, the present application has been filed
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the charge
sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
13. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that even if the
allegations contained in the FIR, charge sheet, and statements recorded
under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC are accepted at their face value, the
essential ingredients of offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC are not
made out.
14. It was contended that the material on record itself discloses a
consensual relationship between two adults, and that the prosecutrix left
her parental home of her own volition, thereby negativing the offence
under Section 366 IPC.
15. Learned counsel argued that the prosecution case is founded on
an alleged promise of marriage which was not fulfilled, and there is no
material to suggest that such promise was false from the inception so as to
vitiate consent.
16. It was submitted that the medical and documentary material does
not support the allegation of forcible sexual assault, and continuation of
the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law,
warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC.
17. Learned Brief Holder for the State opposed the application and
submitted that the FIR and the statements of the prosecutrix, when read as
a whole, prima facie disclose the commission of offences under Sections
366 and 376 IPC.
3
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1075 of 2022-----Gurpal Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and
Others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1097
18. It was argued that the prosecutrix has alleged inducement on the
assurance of marriage followed by sexual exploitation, and such
allegations raise disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in
proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
19. Learned counsel submitted that the charge sheet has been filed
after due investigation and that the truthfulness of the allegations must be
tested during trial.
20. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 supported the
case of the State and submitted that the prosecutrix was emotionally
induced into leaving her home on the assurance of marriage, which was
subsequently withdrawn.
21. It was contended that the prosecutrix has consistently maintained
her allegations and that the Applicant cannot seek quashing merely on the
ground that he was at one stage willing to marry her.
22. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is of an exceptional nature and is to be
exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only to prevent abuse of the
process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. At the same time,
where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected during
investigation do not disclose the commission of any offence, this Court
would be failing in its duty if it declines to intervene.
23. In the present case, the prosecution originates from FIR No. 0001
of 2022, alleging offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, arising out of
a relationship between the Applicant and Respondent No. 3 which
admittedly commenced in the year 2019. The record itself reflects that the
parties were known to each other for a considerable period prior to the
lodging of the FIR.
4
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1075 of 2022-----Gurpal Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and
Others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1097
24. A careful reading of the FIR, as well as the statements of the
prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, reveals that the
gravamen of the allegations is that the prosecutrix accompanied the
Applicant on the assurance of marriage, and that physical relations were
established thereafter, followed by the Applicant's refusal to marry her.
25. Significantly, the material on record does not disclose any
allegation of force, threat, coercion, or deceit practiced at the inception of
the relationship. The prosecutrix does not allege that she was abducted or
compelled to leave her home against her will. On the contrary, the
consistent version emerging from the record is that she left her parental
home voluntarily and accompanied the Applicant.
26. In such circumstances, the essential ingredient of "taking" or
"enticing" so as to constitute an offence under Section 366 IPC is prima
facie absent. Mere accompaniment of a consenting adult, without any
element of compulsion or deception at the threshold, does not satisfy the
statutory requirement of the offence.
27. As regards the offence under Section 376 IPC, the law is by now
well settled that sexual relations on a promise of marriage would amount
to rape only if it is shown that the promise was false from the very
inception and was made with the sole intention of obtaining consent. A
subsequent refusal to marry, howsoever reprehensible from a moral
standpoint, does not ipso facto vitiate consent in law.
28. The statements of the prosecutrix, when read as a whole, do not
disclose any circumstance from which it can be inferred that the Applicant
never intended to marry her at the inception of the relationship. The record
does not reflect any material suggesting fraudulent intent at the threshold,
as opposed to a relationship that later failed.
5
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1075 of 2022-----Gurpal Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and
Others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1097
29. The supplementary medical report dated 23.02.2022, when
examined in conjunction with the statements on record, also does not lend
support to the allegation of forcible sexual assault. At this stage, without
entering into a roving enquiry, it is sufficient to note that the medical
material does not corroborate the prosecution version in a manner that
would prima facie attract Section 376 IPC.
30 . This Court is conscious of the submission made on behalf of the
State that disputed questions of fact ought to be left for trial. However,
where the foundational facts, even if accepted in their entirety, do not
disclose the commission of an offence, compelling an accused to undergo
the rigours of trial would itself amount to an abuse of the process of law.
31. The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is not intended to
short-circuit legitimate prosecutions, but equally, it cannot be rendered
illusory by compelling continuation of proceedings which are manifestly
attended with legal infirmity. Criminal law cannot be permitted to be used
as a tool for settling personal scores arising out of failed relationships.
32. Viewed thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
present case falls within the category of matters where continuation of
criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would result in
undue harassment of the Applicant.
33. Consequently, the charge sheet dated 05.04.2022 and the
proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2022, pending before the learned
District and Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, cannot be sustained in law.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1075 of 2022-----Gurpal Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and
Others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1097
of criminal proceedings against the Applicant would amount to an abuse
of the process of law.
Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application under
Section 482 CrPC is allowed. The charge sheet dated 05.04.2022, arising
out of FIR No. 0001 of 2022, Police Station Berinag, District Pithoragarh,
and the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2022, pending
before the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh,
for offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, are hereby quashed.
Ashish Naithani, J.
SHIKSHA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA
SB
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c1
2f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001,
BINJOLA
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED0
0E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2026.02.18 17:27:30 +05'30'
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1075 of 2022-----Gurpal Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and
Others
Ashish Naithani J.
