Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(UK) 119

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ashish Naithani, J.
Gurpal Singh - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others - Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1075 of 2022
Decided On : 18-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Lalit Belwal and Mr. Ashish Belwal, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder, Mr. Mohd. Matloob, learned counsel

Quashing of proceedings under Sections 366/376 IPC where consensual adult relationship, voluntary accompaniment, and promise of marriage not false from inception, as continuation abuses process in failed relationships. (24 words)

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 366 and 376 - Quashing of charge sheet and proceedings - Consensual relationship between adults commenced via social media in 2019 - Prosecutrix left parental home voluntarily on assurance of marriage - Accompanied to hotel where physical relations established - Subsequent refusal to marry - No allegation of force, threat, coercion or deceit at inception - No material indicating promise false from beginning - Essential ingredients of offences absent - Continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process - Charge sheet and trial quashed. (Paras 22-33)

(B) Rape - Consent on promise of marriage - Vitiated only if promise false from inception with intent to obtain consent - Subsequent refusal to marry, though morally wrong, does not ipso facto vitiate consent. (Para 27)

(C) Kidnapping/Abduction from lawful guardianship - No offence under Section 366 where adult accompanies of own volition without compulsion or deception at threshold. (Para 26)

Facts of the case:
Parties acquainted through social media in 2019 and remained in contact. Prosecutrix alleged inducement on promise of marriage, voluntary departure from home, establishment of physical relations at hotel and subsequent refusal. FIR registered under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, charge sheet filed after investigation including statements and medical report, leading to sessions trial.

Findings of Court:
Charge sheet and entire proceedings quashed as no offence disclosed even accepting allegations at face value.

Issues: Whether material discloses offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC; whether inherent powers under Section 482 warranted to prevent abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi: Court exercises Section 482 powers sparingly but must intervene where uncontroverted facts fail to constitute offence, distinguishing consensual adult relationship without initial deceit from criminal act; medical evidence does not corroborate force.

Result: Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background: consensual relationship alleged as kidnapping and rape. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. applicant's contention: no offence in consensual adult relations. (Para 3 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. voluntary accompaniment by adult negates section 366 ipc. (Para 12 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. state's opposition: disputed facts require full trial adjudication. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. rape only if marriage promise false from inception. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
6. quash proceedings if no prima facie offence disclosed. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT :

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.

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 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 negativ