Suraj Bora vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 11 February, 2026

2026:UHC:800

Judgment Reserved on:12.12.2025
Judgment Pronounced on:11.02.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2082 of 2023

Suraj Bora ......Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Another .....Respondents

Presence:

Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Shubhang Dobhal alongwith Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bora, learned
counsel for Respondent No.2.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed by the Applicant seeking quashing of the
charge-sheet dated 22.07.2023, the cognizance order dated 05.10.2023
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, and the
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6110 of 2023 (State vs. Suraj
Bora), arising out of FIR No. 31 of 2023, registered under Sections
376, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Mussoorie, District
Dehradun.

2. The case of the State, as disclosed from the FIR, is that the Applicant
and Respondent No.2 were acquainted with each other and had been in
a relationship. It is alleged that on the assurance of marriage, the

1
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2082 of 2023-----Suraj Bora vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:800

Applicant developed physical relations with the complainant over a
considerable period. It is further alleged that on 05.03.2023 the
Applicant again assured that he would marry her within 45 days, but
later refused to do so, which led the complainant to lodge the FIR on
17.05.2023, alleging commission of rape and other allied offences.

3. The FIR itself indicates that both the Applicant and the complainant are
major. The relationship between them is admitted to be of long
duration. The allegations are founded primarily on the assertion that
physical relations were established on the promise of marriage and that
subsequently the Applicant declined to marry her.

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that a bare reading of the
FIR and the material collected during investigation clearly shows that
the Applicant and Respondent No.2 were major and were in a
relationship for a considerable period of time. It was argued that the
prosecutrix herself admits continuous interaction and physical
relationship with the Applicant, which prima facie establishes that the
relationship was consensual in nature.

5. It was contended that the entire prosecution case is founded only on the
allegation that the Applicant had assured marriage and later declined to
marry the complainant. Learned counsel argued that mere breach of a
promise to marry does not constitute the offence of rape unless it is
shown that the promise was false from the very inception and was
given only to obtain consent for physical relations.

6. It was further submitted that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet
discloses any specific material to show that at the inception of the

2
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2082 of 2023-----Suraj Bora vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:800

relationship the Applicant never intended to marry the complainant. On
the contrary, the long continuation of the relationship itself indicates
that this was, at the highest, a failed relationship and not a case of
deception.

7. Learned counsel emphasized that continuation of the criminal
proceedings in such circumstances would amount to abuse of the
process of law and would subject the Applicant to unnecessary
harassment. It was, therefore, prayed that this Court may exercise its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the charge-
sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the
application and submitted that after due investigation, the Investigating
Officer has filed the charge-sheet on the basis of the statements of the
prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and other
material collected during investigation. It was contended that the
prosecutrix has consistently alleged that her consent was obtained on
the assurance of marriage and that the Applicant later refused to fulfil
the said assurance.

9. It was argued that whether the promise of marriage was false from the
inception or whether it was a case of subsequent breach is a pure
question of fact which cannot be decided in proceedings under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and can only be adjudicated upon during trial on the basis
of evidence.

10. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 adopted the submissions of
the State and further contended that the allegations disclose the

3
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2082 of 2023-----Suraj Bora vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:800

commission of serious offences and that the Applicant is seeking a
premature appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible in inherent
jurisdiction.

11. It was submitted that at this stage the Court is only required to
see whether the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of an
offence, and not whether the prosecution is likely to succeed. Since the
charge-sheet discloses triable issues, the application deserves to be
dismissed.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

13. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and
upon a careful scrutiny of the FIR, the charge sheet, and the material
collected during investigation, this Court is of the considered view that
the present case squarely warrants exercise of inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

14. It is not in dispute that the Applicant and Respondent No.2 were
both majors at the relevant time and were in a relationship spanning a
considerable period. The FIR itself acknowledges continued
interaction, voluntary companionship, and repeated consensual physical
relations between the parties. The prosecution case is founded
exclusively on the allegation that such relations were established on an
assurance of marriage which was subsequently not fulfilled.

15. The legal position governing such cases is no longer res integra.
Consent for sexual relations, when given by an adult woman, does not
become vitiated merely because a relationship ultimately culminates in

4
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2082 of 2023-----Suraj Bora vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:800

refusal to marry. To attract the offence under Section 376 IPC on the
ground of promise of marriage, it must be prima facie shown that the
promise was false from the very inception and was made solely as a
device to obtain consent. A mere breach of promise, howsoever
reprehensible morally, does not ipso facto constitute rape in the absence
of material indicating initial deception.

16. In the present case, neither the FIR nor the charge sheet discloses
any specific circumstance, conduct, or contemporaneous material
suggesting that the Applicant never intended to marry the complainant
from the inception of the relationship. On the contrary, the admitted
long duration of the relationship, repeated interactions, and continued
voluntary association militates against an inference of initial fraudulent
intent. The allegations, taken at their face value, at best indicate a
relationship that subsequently failed, which by itself cannot be
criminalised under Section 376 IPC.

17. This Court is conscious that at the stage of exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it does not ordinarily undertake appreciation
of evidence. However, where the uncontroverted allegations and
admitted circumstances do not disclose the essential ingredients of the
offence alleged, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to
abuse of the process of law. The inherent powers of this Court exist
precisely to prevent such misuse and to secure the ends of justice.

18. Allowing the prosecution to proceed in the present case would
result in subjecting the Applicant to the rigours of a criminal trial in the
absence of foundational facts necessary to sustain the charge. Such
continuation would serve no legitimate purpose and would instead

5
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2082 of 2023-----Suraj Bora vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:800

operate as a tool of harassment, which the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court is duty bound to prevent.

19. This Court, therefore, finds that the present case falls within the
recognised categories where criminal proceedings deserve to be
quashed at the threshold, as the allegations do not prima facie constitute
the offence alleged and the dispute essentially arises out of a failed
consensual relationship between two adults.

ORDER

The Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed.

The charge sheet dated 22.07.2023, the cognizance order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6110 of 2023 (State vs. Suraj Bora), arising out of FIR No. 31 of 2023, registered at Police Station Mussoorie, District Dehradun, are hereby quashed. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

(Ashish Naithani, J.)

Dated:11.02.2026 NR/

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2082 of 2023-----Suraj Bora vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Ashish Naithani J.