##PAGE1##

Office Notes,

reports, orders

or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with

Signatures

C482 No.898 of 2020

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the

applicant.

Mr. V.S. Pal, A.G.A. and Mr. Nikhil

Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of

Uttarakhand.

2. Present C-528 application is filed with

the prayer to set-aside/quash the charge

sheet dated 15.09.2020, cognizance/

summoning order dated 28.10.2020 and the

entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3854

of 2020, pending in the Court of learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

3. Respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. on

17.07.2020 alleging therein that she had

been in a relationship with applicant no.1

since the year 2006 and that applicant no.1,

on the false pretext of marriage, established

physical relations with her. It was further

alleged that, subsequently, applicant no.1

solemnized marriage with another woman

on 13.07.2020, whereafter the present

F.I.R. came to be lodged. Upon completion

of investigation, the Investigating Officer

submitted charge sheet against the

applicants.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants

submits that the present F.I.R. has been

lodged only with an intent to victimize and

harass the applicants. It is contended that

admittedly applicant no.1 and respondent

no.2 were in a relationship since the year

2006; however, due to non-consent and

disapproval of the parents of applicant no.1

for the proposed marriage, the relationship

ultimately came to an end in the year 2011

itself. It is further submitted that the

aforesaid fact is evident from the complaint

dated 14.11.2011 filed by the mother of

respondent no.2 before the Women

Commission, wherein statements of both

the parties were recorded and it was

reflected that, owing to the unwillingness of

the parents of applicant no.1 to accept the

marriage, the relationship between the

parties had broken down. It is argued that

despite the relationship having ended in the

year 2011, the impugned F.I.R. came to be

lodged after an inordinate delay of about

nine years.

5. Learned counsel further submits that

even a bare perusal of the F.I.R. would

demonstrate that only vague and omnibus

allegations have been levelled against the

applicants. According to him, the present

case is nothing but a consequence of a

consensual relationship having turned sour.

It is also contended that both applicant no.1

and respondent no.2 were majors at the

inception of the relationship in the year

2006 and the relationship between them

remained consensual throughout till the

year 2011. It is further argued that there

was never any fraudulent or dishonest

intention on the part of applicant no.1 from

the very inception not to marry respondent

no.2 and that the marriage could not be

solemnized solely on account of opposition

from the family members of applicant no.1,

owing to which the relationship ultimately

deteriorated. In support of his submissions,

learned counsel has placed reliance upon

the judgment rendered in the case of Amol

Bhagwan Nehul Vs. State of Maharashtra &

another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC

1230, wherein it has been held that a

consensual relationship subsequently

turning sour or parties drifting apart cannot,

by itself, constitute a ground for setting the

criminal law into motion. It was further

observed that such prosecutions not only

unnecessarily burden the Courts, but also

cast a serious stigma upon an individual

accused of a grave offence. The Hon’ble

Apex Court has repeatedly cautioned

against the misuse of the provisions and has

deprecated the tendency to treat every

breach of a promise to marry as a false

promise so as to attract prosecution under

Section 376 I.P.C.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record. The allegations

levelled in the F.I.R., even if taken at their

face value, prima facie disclose a long-

standing consensual relationship between

applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 which

continued from the year 2006 till 2011. The

material on record, particularly the

complaint dated 14.11.2011 filed