Uttarakhand High Court
James Kunjwal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 9 May, 2025
2025:UHC:3748
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1115 of 2021
James Kunjwal ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Another ...Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Devanshi Joshi,
Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, learned counsels for the applicant.
Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/1.
Ms. Anjali Shahi, respondent no.2 present in person.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present case arises from Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No. 1115 of 2021 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, before the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital by the applicant, Mr. James Kunjwal. The matter pertains to
the quashing of proceedings initiated pursuant to FIR No. 109 of 2021,
registered at Police Station Kathgodam, District Nainital, under
Sections 376 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by
Respondent No. 2, Ms. Anjali, who alleged that the applicant sexually
exploited her under the false pretence of marriage and subsequently
refused to marry her.
2. The applicant, Mr. James Kunjwal, and the respondent, Ms.
Anjali, were appointed as Assistant Professors at Graphic Era Institute,
1
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021........James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3748
Dehradun, in the year 2017. During the course of their professional
engagement, a personal relationship developed between the two.
3. On 21.09.2019, the respondent, Ms. Anjali, organised a public
celebration of the applicant's birthday at the university, and in the
presence of colleagues and students, proposed marriage to him. The
applicant accepted the proposal, and discussions regarding
formalisation of the alliance were thereafter initiated between both
families.
4. In mid-April 2021, the applicant claims to have come across
certified court documents revealing that the respondent had previously
been married to one Vinod Singh, and that the decree of divorce had
been granted only on 22.07.2020. This prior marital history had
allegedly not been disclosed to the applicant at any stage of the
relationship or during family-level discussions.
5. Around the same time, the applicant learned from news reports
that the respondent's brother had been arrested in connection with the
alleged murder of their mother, which had taken place in the year 2020.
Despite the disturbing developments, the applicant and his family are
stated to have attended the last rites of the deceased.
6. Apprehending threats, blackmail, and concealment of material
facts, the applicant submitted a written complaint dated 25.01.2021 to
the Circle Officer, Haldwani, wherein he unequivocally communicated
his decision to withdraw from the proposed matrimonial alliance. He
cited concerns such as familial instability, suppression of prior marital
status, and alleged coercion for financial assistance in the legal defence
of the respondent's brother.
7. According to the respondent, she was unaware of the said
complaint. She continued to maintain her relationship with the
applicant, including physical intimacy, allegedly on the continuing
assurance of marriage, up to 28.04.2021.
2
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021........James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3748
8. On 01.05.2021, a final confrontation is stated to have taken place
between the parties, during which the applicant is alleged to have
unequivocally declined to marry the respondent.
9. On the next day, i.e., 02.05.2021, the respondent lodged FIR No.
109 of 2021 at Police Station Kathgodam, District Nainital, under
Sections 376 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alleging that she
had been subjected to sexual intercourse under a false promise of
marriage and had also been verbally abused.
10. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the applicant was taken
into custody. His bail application before the learned Sessions Judge,
Nainital, was rejected on 04.05.2021.
11. Thereafter, the applicant approached this Hon'ble Court through
Bail Application No. 1190 of 2021. Vide order dated 08.06.2021, this
Court was pleased to grant regular bail to the applicant, having regard
to the materials placed on record and the background of the dispute.
12. Subsequently, Chargesheet No. 01 of 2021 was filed by the
Investigating Officer on 14.06.2021 before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Haldwani. Cognisance was taken by the learned Magistrate
on 29.07.2021, and the matter was registered as Criminal Case No.
3576 of 2021.
13. After the grant of bail, the respondent moved an application
seeking cancellation of the applicant's bail, alleging post-bail
misconduct, including transmission of inappropriate WhatsApp
messages, suggestive Instagram status updates, and unwelcome contact
at the premises of the trial court.
14. The Supreme Court, in James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand
(2024 SCC OnLine SC 1943), quashed the proceedings against James
Kunjwal under Section 193 IPC (perjury), holding that mere denial of
allegations in an affidavit without deliberate falsehood or malafide
intent does not meet the threshold for perjury. The Court emphasised
3
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021........James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3748
that prosecution under Section 193 IPC requires prima facie evidence
of intentional falsehood on a substantive matter, which was absent here.
It was noted that such proceedings should only be initiated in
exceptional circumstances where expedient justice is required. The
High Court's direction to file a complaint was set aside, clarifying that
this decision would not affect the pending criminal case against James
Kunjwal under Sections 376/504 IPC.
15. On the basis of the respondent's complaint dated 24.07.2022, the
local police summoned the applicant. It is stated that the applicant gave
a verbal assurance to desist from such conduct. Nevertheless, another
complaint followed, prompting the police to once again issue a
summons. As per the inquiry records, the applicant admitted to
uploading certain online content against the respondent and was
formally cautioned.
16. In the interregnum, the applicant instituted the present petition
under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of FIR No. 109 of 2021 and
the consequential proceedings, on the ground that the dispute arises
from a failed consensual relationship that has been given a criminal
colour out of malice.
17. During the pendency of proceedings, the respondent has filed
multiple counter-affidavits and supplementary pleadings, expanding the
scope of allegations to include claims of forced abortion and continued
emotional and physical exploitation.
18. The present petition, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeks quashing of the impugned FIR
and the proceedings arising therefrom, primarily on the ground that the
allegations are borne out of a deteriorated personal relationship and do
not, even if taken at face value, disclose the commission of any
cognisable offence.
4
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021........James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3748
19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
20. The applicant respectfully submits that the present criminal
proceedings are the outcome of a failed personal relationship which,
though long-standing and consensual in nature, turned adversarial upon
the applicant's withdrawal from the proposed marriage. It is submitted
that the relationship between the applicant and the respondent, which
began in 2017 and continued for several years, involved complete
emotional and physical intimacy, as well as active involvement of both
families on two separate occasions for finalising matrimonial
arrangements. The applicant contends that he had a genuine intent to
marry the respondent, which stands demonstrated by the repeated
scheduling of the wedding and financial commitments undertaken by
his family.
21. It is further submitted that the applicant's decision not to proceed
with the marriage was not whimsical or malicious but arose from
material facts discovered in April 2021 namely, the respondent's
undisclosed prior marriage and recent divorce, and the arrest of her
brother in a grave criminal case concerning the alleged murder of their
mother. These facts were not known to the applicant earlier and, once
revealed, gave rise to serious apprehensions about trust, transparency,
and long-term compatibility. The applicant, therefore, submitted a
formal complaint on 25.01.2021 to the Circle Officer, Haldwani, clearly
expressing his unwillingness to proceed with the matrimonial alliance.
22. The applicant respectfully submits that FIR No. 109 of 2021,
registered on 02.05.2021 under Sections 376 and 504 IPC, was lodged
only after the applicant's unequivocal refusal to marry the complainant.
The timing and circumstances of the FIR suggest that it was a
reactionary measure aimed at coercing the applicant into marriage,
rather than a bona fide allegation of criminal wrongdoing. The
continuation of the relationship even beyond January 2021, as admitted
5
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021........James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3748
by the complainant herself, belies the claim of inducement based on a
false promise to marry.
23. The learned counsel, relying on various judgments including Dr
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and Others
(2019) 18 SCC 191, argued for drawing a clear distinction between
consensual sex and rape. He further highlighted relevant observations
from the judgment -
"23.Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and
consensual sex The court, in such cases, must very carefully
examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry
the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise
to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the
ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction
between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false
promise. If the accused has not made the promise with the sole
intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such
an act would not amount to rape. There may be a case where the
prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her
love and passion for the accused and not solely on account of the
misconception created by accused, or where an accused, on
account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or
which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite
having every intention to do. Such cases must be treated
differently."
24. It is further submitted that; the law is well-settled that not every
failed promise of marriage amounts to rape. For an offence under
Section 376 IPC to be made out, it must be established that the promise
to marry was false from the outset and made with mala fide intent. The
applicant places reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
6
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021........James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3748
Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9
SCC 608, and Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675,
which draw a clear distinction between false promises and genuine
relationships that do not culminate in marriage due to changed
circumstances.The learned counsel also places reliance on Naim
Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 15 SCC 385, highlighting the
relevant portions from the judgment.
"..it is pertinent to note that there is a difference between
giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the
accused. In case of false promise, the accused right from the
beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix
and would have cheated or deceited the prosecutrix by giving a
false promise to marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust,
whereas in case of breach of promise, one cannot deny a
possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all
seriousness to marry her, and subsequently might have
encountered certain circumstances unforeseen by him or the
circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfil
his promise. So, it would be a folly to treat each breach of
promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for
the offence under Section 376. As stated earlier, each case would
depend upon its proven facts before the court."
25. The applicant further contends that the continuation of the
present criminal proceedings constitutes a gross abuse of the process of
law. Even assuming the allegations to be true at face value, they do not
satisfy the legal ingredients necessary to constitute the offences alleged.
As held in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,
when a complaint is actuated by malice or filed with ulterior motives,
the Hon'ble High Court is empowered to exercise its inherent
7
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021........James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3748
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent misuse of the criminal
process.
26. On the argument regarding section 482 Cr.P.C, learned counsel
relied on Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi),
Department of Home and Another, (2019) 11 SCC 706, in which the
counsel highlighted -
"16. There is nothing in the words of this section
which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court
to prevent the abuse of process of court or
miscarriage of justice, only to the stage of the FIR. It
is a settled principle of law that the High Court can
exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even
when the discharge application is pending with the
trial courts. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold
that proceedings initiated against a person can be
interfered with at the stage of the FIR. Still, not if it
has advanced and the allegations have materialised
into a charge-sheet. On the contrary, it could be said
that the abuse of process caused by the FIR stands
aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-
sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly
conferred to prevent abuse of the process of power of
any court."
27. The counsel further quoted Iqbal alias Bala and Others vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2023) 8 SCC 734, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court judgement observed that -
"11.In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a
duty to look into many other attending circumstances
8
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021........James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3748
emerging from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection, try to read between the lines. The Court,
while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or
Article 226 of the Constitution, need not restrict itself only
to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account
the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials
collected in the course of investigation. Take, for instance,
the case at hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a
period of time. It is in the background of such
circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes
importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking
vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."
28. The learned counsel has relied on Abhishek v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2023) 16 SCC 666, citing the relevant part of the judgment as
-
"19. Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court in
Mahmood Ali. State of U.P. (2023) 15 SCC 488 on the legal
principles applicable apropos Section 482 CrPC. Therein,
it was observed that when an accused comes before the
High Court, invoking either the inherent power under
Section 482 CrPC or the extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the
criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground
that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious
or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court
owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
9
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021........James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3748
closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough
for the court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the record of the
case over and above the averments and, if need be, with
due care and circumspection, to try and read between the
lines."
29. It was, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quash
FIR No. 109 of 2021 and the consequential proceedings, to prevent the
miscarriage of justice and protect the sanctity of the criminal process.
30. In response to the allegations of misconduct post-bail, the
applicant submits that he has never threatened or sought to influence
the complainant in any manner. While certain social media posts or
WhatsApp statuses may have been perceived as inappropriate, they
were neither directed at the complainant nor intended to cause any
harassment. The applicant, when summoned by the police in July 2022,
had assured the authorities that he would refrain from any further
contact. This Hon'ble Court, in its detailed order dated 01.10.2022, had
already declined to cancel the applicant's bail, having found no material
to justify curtailing his liberty.
31. Per contra, the respondent respectfully submits that a clear prima
facie case is made out against the applicant under Section 376 IPC. The
FIR, read along with her affidavit and supporting documents,
establishes that the applicant engaged in a physical relationship with
10
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021........James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3748
her on the pretext of marriage, despite having decided internally not to
marry her and having already initiated plans to marry another woman.
The respondent states that, had she been aware of the applicant's true
intention, she would not have consented to any such relationship. Her
consent, thus, stands vitiated under clause 2 of Section 375 IPC. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC
46, and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9
SCC 608, has categorically held that consent obtained on the basis of a
promise of marriage which the man never intended to fulfil amounts to
rape. The facts of the present case squarely fall within that ratio.
32. It is further submitted that while the applicant had submitted a
written complaint dated 25.01.2021 to the Circle Officer, Haldwani,
expressing his decision not to marry the respondent, this fact was never
communicated to her. On the contrary, the physical and emotional
relationship between the parties continued until 28.04.2021, as reflected
in medical documents, hotel records, and communication logs placed
on record. This establishes that the applicant knowingly sustained the
illusion of an impending marriage while having already withdrawn
mentally and formally from the relationship. The deception was
deliberate and calculated, resulting in the respondent's continued
consent to physical relations under a false belief. It is further revealed
that during this period, the applicant had fixed his marriage with
another woman and was also allegedly involved in a parallel physical
relationship with one Ms. Nisha Bhatt. Such conduct reveals a pattern
of betrayal, manipulation, and systematic abuse of trust.
33. The respondent further submits that the present petition under
Section 482 CrPC does not warrant interference at this stage. It is a
well-settled principle that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are
to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances where
the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any
11
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021........James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3748
offence. In the present matter, the FIR read with documentary evidence
and supplementary material discloses the commission of a cognisable
and non-compoundable offence under Section 376 IPC. The respondent
relied on CBI v. Aryan Singh and others (2023) 18 SCC 399,
highlighting-
"As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage
ofdischarge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while
exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not
required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common
impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges
against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where
the prosecution /investigating agency is/are required to prove the
charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial
on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution /investigating
agency."
34. The applicant's conduct post-grant of bail further reinforces the
respondent's apprehensions. Despite being enlarged on bail by this
Hon'ble Court on 08.06.2021, the applicant continued to contact the
respondent via messages, WhatsApp statuses, and Instagram content,
some of which were obscene or suggestive in nature. The respondent
submitted complaints to the police on 24.07.2022 and thereafter. The
police summoned the applicant, and the State Government, in its
counter affidavit, has admitted that the applicant verbally assured non-
repetition of such conduct after acknowledging the same.
35. However, the conduct did recur, thereby establishing a pattern of
intimidation, psychological harassment, and disregard for bail
conditions. The applicant even attempted to approach the respondent
within court premises, further aggravating her distress and undermining
the sanctity of the ongoing legal process.
36. Lastly, the respondent submits that her allegations are not
12
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021........James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3748
baseless or speculative but are grounded in verifiable documentation
and consistent testimony. She has placed substantial corroborative
material on record, including medical reports, hotel records, and chat
logs. Her complaint was not lodged in isolation but was followed by
procedural compliance and police intervention. She has also regularly
attended court proceedings after being served with a summons in
October 2022. The delays in the trial proceedings are not attributable to
her conduct.
37. In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that the present
petition seeking quashing of the FIR and proceedings may be
dismissed, and the trial permitted to proceed in accordance with law.
38. The factual context in which the FIR has been lodged is
important. The parties were colleagues in an academic institution and,
by their own admission, engaged in a personal and physically intimate
relationship over a prolonged period beginning in 2017. Matrimonial
discussions were held between their respective families on two
occasions, and dates for solemnisation were fixed and preparations
made. The applicant now argues that he had withdrawn from the
alliance formally by submitting a police complaint on 25.01.2021. Still,
it is undisputed that no such communication was ever conveyed to the
respondent. On the contrary, physical proximity and emotional
intimacy continued until the end of April 2021, a fact admitted by both
parties and corroborated through records placed on file, including
medical documents and hotel stays.
39. The timing of the FIR, lodged on 02.05.2021, immediately
following the applicant's refusal to marry the respondent on
01.05.2021, is sought to be portrayed by the applicant as indicative of
malice or coercive intent. However, this Court cannot overlook the
pattern of conduct that preceded the complaint. The respondent has
specifically alleged that she continued to consent to physical relations
13
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021........James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3748
only because of the subsisting assurance of marriage, an assurance she
claims the applicant never intended to fulfil. This sequence of events, if
proven, lends substantial weight to the respondent's claim that her
consent was obtained by deception, which, however, is a matter for
trial.
40. This court takes note of the fact that the jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC is not to be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution
where allegations prima facie discloses the commission of an offence.
The law is equally settled that the power to quash a First Information
Report must be invoked sparingly, and only where the complaint does
not disclose any offence, is manifestly frivolous or vexatious, or is
actuated by malice.
41. On point of consent, learned counsel for the applicant relied on
certain judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court such as Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 and
Yogendra Digambar Saindane v. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 904/2021 as well as Mahesh
Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2024) SCC online
SC 741 to lay emphasis on the legal position of "consent" of a woman
with respect to section 375 of IPC, that the consent must involve an
active and deliberation towards the proposed act and the counsel sought
to distinguish between rape and consensual sex.
42. This court takes note of Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4
SCC 46, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a promise to
marry that is false from the beginning and made with no intention to
carry it out, amounts to misrepresentation. Similarly, in Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, the
Court clarified that the determinative factor is whether the accused had
a dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the promise was made.
Where the promise is not kept due to subsequent developments, no
14
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021........James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3748
offence is made out. However, where the promise is illusory, deceitful,
or designed to exploit, Section 375 clause 2 is attracted.
43. At this juncture, this Court is not expected to conduct a roving
inquiry or evaluate the probative value of evidence. Nonetheless, a
prima facie case must be assessed.
44. The claim that the physical relationship was purely consensual in
the ordinary sense cannot be accepted at face value. The relationship, as
revealed from the record, continued until 28.04.2021, despite the
applicant's submission of a complaint dated 25.01.2021 expressing his
decision not to proceed with the marriage, a fact that was admittedly
never communicated to the respondent. The continuation of emotional
and physical intimacy thereafter, corroborated by documents such as
hotel records and medical reports, strongly suggests that the respondent
remained under the impression that the promise of marriage still
subsisted. This disparity, where one party alone is aware of the decision
to withdraw from the alliance while the other continues under a
misapprehension, reflects a situation of unequal knowledge, vitiating
the concept of free and informed consent.
45. The argument that a failed relationship should not be criminalised
is, in principle, correct. However, where one party enters or sustains an
intimate relationship under a promise that was never intended to be
honoured, and suffers emotional, physical, and reputational harm as a
result, the criminal law cannot remain indifferent. The criminalisation
lies not in the breakdown of the relationship but in the manner in which
it was exploited. In that context, consent ceases to be meaningful, and
the law rightly steps in to examine whether such consent was obtained
under false pretences.
46. The applicant's further contention that this is a classic case of
post-breakup vengeance and that the complainant is misusing criminal
law as a tool of retaliation is unpersuasive at this stage. The respondent
15
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021........James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3748
has consistently attended proceedings and produced documentation to
support her claims. She has not merely relied on oral testimony but has
submitted medical reports, digital evidence, and hotel records. Her
conduct does not reflect mala fides but rather the sustained trauma of
emotional exploitation, which, if proven, deserves redress under the
criminal law.
47. Moreover, the conduct of the applicant post-grant of bail further
compounds the seriousness of the case. As recorded in proceedings
related to bail cancellation, the applicant continued to engage in online
conduct that was suggestive or inappropriate, allegedly aimed at the
respondent. Though warned by authorities, the behaviour recurred. His
conduct goes beyond a mere social media lapse; it reflects disregard for
legal restraints and contributes to an atmosphere of intimidation for the
victim.
48. Furthermore, reliance has been placed upon various judgments of
the Supreme Court by the Parties. The Applicant with the support of
various judgements such as Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and AnotherCriminal Appeal No (1231) of 2022 and
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar V. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC
19, has highlighted the parameters governing the exercise of the
jurisdiction of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stating that, High Court would be
justified to quash any proceedings if it finds that initiation/continuance
of it amounts to abuse of process of court or quashing of these
proceedings would otherwise secure the ends of justice when no
offence is disclosed by complaint, court may examine question of fact.
49. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgement in State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan andOthers, AIR (2019) SC 1296,
by the Respondent, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court says that -
"On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is
almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence
16
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021........James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3748
the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High
Court should refrain from exercising its power under
Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court
would be in a position to decide the case finally on
merits and to come to a conclusion..."
50. In the case of V. Ravikumar v State (2019) 14 SCC 568, Hon'ble
SC affirmed that, where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR invoking
the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible
for the High Court to enter the factual arena to adjust the correctness of
the allegations in the complaint.
51. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that
the FIR in question discloses the commission of a cognisable, non-
compoundable offence under Section 376 IPC. The allegations, when
read as a whole and taken at face value, cannot be said to be absurd,
inherently improbable, or wholly lacking in substance. The case
involves disputed questions of fact and mixed questions of law, which
can only be determined upon full trial and not within the limited
contours of Section 482 CrPC.
52. It is an admitted position that the trial in the present matter has
already commenced and is at an advanced stage. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has time and again cautioned that once the trial has begun, the
High Court must exercise extreme restraint in invoking its inherent
powers. The stage of Section 482 is not to interject into a proceeding
that has already entered the evidentiary phase unless there is a glaring
illegality or miscarriage of justice neither of which is apparent in the
present case, and the issues raised by the petitioner are intricately
linked to factual determinations that are best addressed during the trial
process.
53. The High Court must refrain from conducting a "mini-trial" or
delving into the merits of the case at the pre-trial stage.The trial has
17
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021........James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3748
already commenced, and the issues raised by the petitioner are
intricately linked to factual determinations that are best addressed
during the trial process. As established in CBI v. Aryan Singh supra, the
Hon'ble Court has observed that -
"As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of
discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,
while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC, the
Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial."
ORDER
In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to exercise
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The allegations, when
read as a whole, disclose the commission of a cognisable and non-
compoundable offence under Section 376 IPC. The case involves
disputed questions of fact and evidentiary matters that cannot be
adjudicated at the pre-trial stage. The trial has already commenced, and
no exceptional circumstance or glaring illegality is made out to justify
interference under the limited jurisdiction conferred by Section 482 Cr
Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
Ashish Naithani, J.
Dated:09th May, 2025
NR/
18
Criminal Miss. Application No. 1115 of 2021……..James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another
Ashish Naithani J.
[ad_1]
Source link