Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. Mr. Naman Kamboj, learned counsel for respondent no.2 through Video Conferencing.

4. Present C-528 application has been filed to quash the cognizance order dated 10.03.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.2139 of 2021 under Section 376 I.P.C. as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that an FIR was lodged by the complainant alleging that her maternal aunt (Mami) told her that she could arrange her marriage with the son of her elder sister and after the initial marriage talks, the aunt shared the mobile numbers of the applicant and the informant, and they started talking to each other over the phone. It is alleged that during these conversations, the informant met the applicant in a hotel in July and during this period, the applicant also spoke with the informant's parents, who were agreeable to the proposed marriage. It is further alleged that the informant met the applicant again in a hotel, thereafter, it was decided that the applicant's parents would visit the informant's house to finalize the marriage. The informant also alleges that, on the promise of marriage, the applicant established physical relations with her but later refused to marry her. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a chargesheet, and the learned trial court took cognizance against the applicant.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that although the marriage proposal was initially initiated through the informant's aunt, the families later did not agree to the marriage; that, the allegation of physical relations or sexual intercourse in any hotel is completely false and has been made only to pressurize the applicant into marrying the informant; that, there is no evidence to support these allegations; that, after the FIR was lodged, the informant was medically examined, and no injuries suggestive of forceful sexual intercourse were found and the medical report does not support the prosecution case.

7. Learned counsel further submits that there is nothing on record to show that the applicant had any intention from the beginning to deceive the informant; that, both the applicant and the informant were major at the time of the alleged incident; that, even if it is assumed that physical relations were established between them, the same were consensual in nature; that, the informant's maternal aunt had assured her that she would arrange the marriage with the applicant.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation in a routine and mechanical manner and submitted the chargesheet without properly examining the facts of the case; that, on the basis of such chargesheet, the learned trial court took cognizance; that, the allegations contained in the FIR, the statements of the victim and other material collected during investigation, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 376 IPC against the applicant, therefore, the entire criminal proceedings are unsustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be quashed.

9. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 strongly opposed the application. However, he did not dispute the submission of the applicant's counsel that marriage talks between the applicant and the informant were going on at the time of the alleged incident. He further submitted that the victim has now married another person.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

11. It is undisputed that both the applicant and the victim were major and consenting adults and they came into contact through relatives and that marriage talks were going on between their families. They remained in contact for a considerable time and met each other on several occasions.