IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 793 of 2025

Reserved on: 13.11.2025

Date of Decision: 02.12.2025

Ramesh Kumar ...Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & another. ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner : M/s Sarthak Karol and Vaibhav

C Singh Chauhan, Advocates.

For the respondents : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate

General, for respondent No.1/State

Mr. Yudhveer Singh Thakur, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel for

respondent No.2/victim.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

quashing of F.I.R. No.21 of 2023, dated 08.11.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 313 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Women Police Station, Shimla, District Shimla and the

consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police, asserting that she was asked to join at Shimla. Her .house was at a distance from Shimla, so she resigned; however, the company did not accept her resignation and transferred her to Panchkula. The petitioner was employed in the same company in which the informant was working. The informant had no place to stay. The petitioner asked her to srtay in the official guest house of the company. She arranged a room at Manimajra. She requested the Head of the Department to increase her salary, but he declined and asked her to shift to Shimla. She refused but was compelled to go to Shimla. She contacted the petitioner and asked him to arrange a room in Shimla. The petitioner sent the photograph of a two-room set. She went to Shimla and saw that one room had Ha double bed and the other room was empty. The petitioner was present in the room. He told her that one bed belonged to her and the other bed belonged to him. The petitioner was intoxicated after fifteen days. He touched the informant inappropriately. The informant protested. He promised to marry her. They had sexual relations thereafter. The informant went to attend her brother’s marriage. A lockdown was imposed in the meantime. The petitioner took the informant to his sister’s house, where she remained for 27 days. The informant became pregnant. The petitioner forced the inform.ant to abort the fetus. The petitioner continued to maintain sexual relations with the informant. She again became pregnant. The petitioner administered some drugs to her. The petitioner got engaged in the meantime. The informant narrated the incident to her superior officer, who prormised that the petitioner would break off the engagement and marry her. However, the petitioner got married. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the mobil e phones of the petitioner and the informant. The petitioner had entered into a sexual relationship with the informant on the pretext of marriage, but he married Hsomewhere else. The result from FSL has been received. No semen was detected in the samples except the semen sample of the petitioner. No DNA profiling was conducted. The petitioner is capable of performing sexual intercourse, and the possibility of recent sexual assault upon the victim could not be ruled out, as per the report of the Medical Officer. The chat was found present in the mobile phone (Exhibit X1). The obscene images of the victim were also detected in the data extracted from the mobile phone; however, these were not found to have been circulated to any person. The chat and audio were. found in the mobile phone (Ext. 2). The police filed the charge-sheet before the police after the completion of the investigation.

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the F.I.R. and the proceedings before the learned Trial Court, the petitioner/accused has filed the present petition asserting that the allegations made by the informant are wholly misconceiv