HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 626 of 2025

20 June, 2025 Mustafa ……………..Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another ……..Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. R K Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the First Information Report (FIR) being Case Crime No. 0166 of 2025 dated 07.06.2025, registered under Sections 376, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, along with a prayer for other ancillary reliefs.

2. The brief facts, as per the record, are that the aforementioned FIR was lodged by respondent no. 3 on 07.06.2025, alleging that she was in a relationship with the petitioner for the last six years. During this period, the petitioner allegedly established physical relations with the complainant multiple times on the pretext of marriage. However, the petitioner later refused to marry the complainant and allegedly threatened to kill her.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present matter; that, the petitioner and respondent no. 3 are both major and were involved in a consensual relationship lasting six years; that, initially, when respondent no. 3/complainant approached the police to lodge a complaint, a compromise was allegedly brokered by a woman who claimed to be a local newspaper editor; that, despite such settlement, the complainant has now filed the present FIR with the intent of gaining undue advantage over the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations in the FIR are concocted and baseless, and that even a plain reading of the FIR does not prima facie disclose an offence under Section 376 IPC, therefore, same is liable to be quashed.

Per contra

5. , learned State Counsel opposes the writ petition by submitting that serious allegations of rape have been made in the FIR; that, developing physical relations on the false pretext of marriage cannot be considered consensual, and as such, the ingredients of the offence under Section 376 IPC are made out. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. In the present case, the allegations suggest that the petitioner induced respondent no. 3 into a physical relationship by making a false promise of marriage, which, if true, amounts to obtaining consent under a misconception of fact, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 376 IPC. Accordingly, considering the serious and heinous nature of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned FIR at this stage.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.

9. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

10. No order as to costs.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)

20.06.2025

Mamta