Uttarakhand High Court
Gokulanand Salwasi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 22 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
1
Judgment reserved on: 06.08.2025
Judgment delivered on: 22.08.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.226 of 2022
Gokulanand Salwasi ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another .....Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:
Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/
respondent No.1.
Mr. Asif Ali and Ms. Nisha Dhami, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per)
By means for the present C482 application, the
applicant has put to challenge the cognizance/summoning
order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional
Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gangolihaat, District
Pithoragarh, in Criminal Case No.18 of 2021, State Vs.
Gokulanand Salwasi, under Section 376 IPC, as well as the
entire proceedings of the aforementioned Criminal Case.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR
No.0025 of 2020 was lodged by respondent No.2 against
the applicant on 11.11.2020 at P.S. Berinaag, District
Pithoragarh, alleging therein that the applicant had
committed rape upon her on several occasions under the
false pretext of marriage. On the basis of the said FIR,
investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer
and a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant under
Section 376 IPC on 01.01.2021, in furtherance of which,
learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) has taken
cognizance and summoned the applicant for trial.
2
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the allegations leveled by respondent No.2 are false and do
not disclose the commission of any offence under Section
376 IPC against the applicant for the reason that the
victim/respondent No.2 herself consented to develop the
physical relationship and further she had never raised her
grievance almost for two and a half year. He further
submits that the respondent No.2 is elder in age to the
applicant and it appears improbable that a person older
than the applicant could be deceived by him on the false
pretext of marriage.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon
judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Another, reported in (2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases
608 and in the case of Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs. The
State of West Bengal and Another, reported in (2025)
SCC Online SC 741, wherein it is held that the mere fact
of sexual intercourse on multiple occasions, along with a
promise of marriage, does not amount to rape unless it is
shown that the promise was made with a dishonest
intent from the very beginning.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the
applicant that the Investigating Officer submitted the
charge-sheet in a routine manner without proper
investigation and even the Investigating Officer did not
record the statements of parents of the respondent No.2. It
is further contended by him that the learned Judicial
Magistrate (First Class), without application of judicial
mind and in a very routine manner, has taken cognizance
upon the applicant.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that
the Investigating Officer only after conducting a proper
investigation and recording the statements of the
3
complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C., submitted the
charge-sheet and learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class)
after considering the prima-facie evidence rightly took the
cognizance, and thereafter summoned the applicant.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed
counter affidavit, on the basis of which, they submit that
all the facts stated by the respondent No.2 in the FIR are
real and true. She, under the bonafide impression that the
applicant would marry her, engaged in a physical
relationship with the applicant and for this reason, did not
raise any grievance before any authority at the relevant
time. They also placed reliance upon Para 14 of the
judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of
Anurag Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal
Appeal No.629 of 2019 dated 09.04.2019, to
substantiate their submission.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further
submitted that a compromise also took between the
respondent No.2 and the father of applicant, in which, he
gave a handwritten letter on behalf of applicant to the
concerned Police Station in presence of respective
witnesses, yet the applicant refused to marry respondent
No.2 without giving any justification.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the material available on record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations in
the present matter pertain to a heinous offence. The FIR
was lodged within a period of two months from the last
sexual intercourse between the applicant and the
respondent No.2; delay of two months in lodging the FIR
alleging rape is self explanatory in nature and can’t be
termed as inordinate delay. It is further noted that in
matters of rape, much is at stake-not only the dignity and
reputation of the victim but also that of her family
4
members. Having regard to the background and standing of
the victim’s family, there appears no apparent reason to
lodge a false FIR merely to implicate the applicant.
Furthermore, the material on record reflects that the
alleged incident occurred when the respondent No.2 was
merely 22 years of age. At that stage, she was not so
mature in life experience as to be excluded from any
emotional influence and it cannot be said that she would
have anticipated all the consequences of her actions.
Further, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the
applicant on certain case laws referred in Para-4 of this
judgment, is also misplaced. The facts of those cases are
distinguishable in those matters, the FIR had been lodged
after an inordinate delay, in some, the applicant was
already married and in another, the decision not to marry
arose from caste differences. None of those circumstances
have occurred in the present matter. Moreover, the record
makes it probable that the complainant was induced into a
physical relationship under the false pretext of marriage. In
rural settings, particularly in a State like Uttarakhand,
false allegations of rape are uncommon given the severe
social stigma and the risk to the honour and standing of
the victim’s family. Therefore, this Court finds that the
present matter does not fall within the category of “rarest of
rare” cases warranting the exercise of inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.
10. Since, the offence alleged against the applicant
is very serious in nature and prima-facie made out a case
against the applicant, it is essential for the ends of justice
that the applicant should be subjected to a proper trial.
Recently, in the case of Neeharika, Infrastructure
Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, it has been held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court that criminal case shall not be scuttled
5
at the initial stage. Relevant sub-paras of Para 33 of the
said judgment are quoted hereunder:-
“33.4) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly
with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the “rarest
of rare cases” (not to be confused with the formation in the
context of death penalty).
33.5) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which
is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR/complaint;
33.6) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage;
33.15) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the
allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable
offence or not. The court is not required to consider on
merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out
a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in
the FIR;
11. After keeping the above principle in mind, this
Court is of the opinion that as prima-facie case is made out
against the applicant and the charge-sheet has been
submitted and the applicant was summoned after
cognizance, this Court cannot enter into merits of the case
at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only
be proved during trial, after both the parties would adduce
their respective evidences.
12. Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed.
13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
22.08.2025
PN