Uttarakhand High Court
Vikas @ Vikas Thakur vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 29 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
1
Judgment reserved on: 05.06.2025
Judgment delivered on: 29.07.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.2278 of 2022
Vikas @ Vikas Thakur ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. H.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned D.A.G. with Mr. Vikas
Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/
respondent No.1.
Ms. Sheetal Selwal, learned legal-aid counsel for respondent
No.2-complainant.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per)
By means of the present C482 application,
applicant has put to challenge the charge-sheet dated
09.10.2022, cognizance/summoning order dated
04.11.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Case
No.1041 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Vikas,
punishable u/s 376 and 506 IPC, along with the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.
2. The facts in brief are that an FIR was lodged by
respondent No.2 against the applicant alleging therein that
the applicant had committed rape under the false pretext of
marriage and threatened to release her obscene videos
online, if she would lodge a complaint against the
applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the applicant is a young boy of 22 years’ of age, who
recently graduated and preparing for competitive exams
and lives in a rented house in Kashipur. He also submits
that the respondent No.2 is 30 years old having a son of 9
years old, who lives near the rented house of the applicant.
He further submits that the respondent No.2 requested the
2
applicant’s sister to teach her school going son, to which
she agreed, and hence, became familiar to the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further
submits that at the time of filing the FIR, applicant was
only 20 years’ old, which is below the legal age of marriage,
therefore, making the applicant ineligible to marry
respondent No.2. He further contends that since, the
respondent No.2 was already in an existing marriage and
also had a child of 7 years at the time of alleged incident, it
was further not possible for the applicant to establish a
marital commitment with her.
5. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel
for the applicant that the charge-sheet has been filed in a
mechanical manner without proper investigation. He also
raised doubt over the fact that how one witness named
Anjali, who is a resident of Bareilly, concerned with the
alleged case. He further contends that the learned Court
below, without application of judicial mind and in a routine
manner, taken cognizance against the applicant and
summoned him to face the trial.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that
the Investigating Officer, after detailed investigation and
examining the witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and
recording the statement of respondent No.2 under Section
164 Cr.P.C., has submitted the charge-sheet on
09.10.2022, on which the learned Judicial Magistrate has
lawfully taken cognizance and summoned the applicant.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 filed
counter affidavit and on the basis of which, she also took
the same line of argument as that of learned State Counsel.
Moreover, in her supplementary counter affidavit, she
submits that the respondent No.2 got married with the
applicant on 09.10.2021, the relevant photographs are also
3
annexed with the Supplementary Counter Affidavit as
Annexure No.S.C.A-1.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the
rejoinder affidavit, on which, he submits that the
Investigating Officer, after proper investigation, had found
that the respondent No.2 was a married lady at the time of
alleged incident. He further submits that respondent No.2
is also a youtuber, in which, she does acting and dancing
with other creators. It is also submitted that the
photocopies of the photographs annexed with the
supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent
No.2, are a part of photo shoot for Youtube, which has
since been deleted from the Youtube channel of the
respondent No.2. He further contends that the fact of
alleged marriage solemnized between the applicant and the
respondent No.2, is being for the first time raised in her
supplementary counter affidavit and the respondent No.2
has made no mention of the alleged marriage in the entire
course of investigation and not even in the FIR.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having gone through the entire material available on
record, this Court is surprised to say the least moreso,
when the respondent No.2-prosecutrix is a married lady,
having a son of 7 years’ of age and was of 28 years’ of age
at the time of alleged incident, with all the kind of worldly
experience, how was she so naïve to make physical
relations with a young boy of 20 years’ of age, on the false
pretext of marriage. On perusal of the factual matrix, it is
quite clear that the alleged incident took place in the year
2020, whereas the respondent No.2 was in a marital
relation till 2024, therefore, even if the allegations in FIR
are taken to be true, such promise to marry to begin with,
was illegal and unenforceable qua the applicant. Moreover,
from perusal of the records, it doesn’t appear that the
4
consent to establish physical relations with respondent
No.2-prosecutrix, does not appear to be given under
misconception of fact and only on assurance of marriage,
as respondent No.2 was very well aware of the subsistence
of her own marriage. The investigation also reveals that at
the time of alleged incident, she was not divorced.
Therefore, it is inconceivable that she engaged in physical
relationship with the application on assurance of marriage,
while she was already married with someone else.
10. Moreover, there is also no evidence of coercion
or threat of injury, except bald statements of respondent
No.2 to establish ingredient of Section 506 IPC, her bald
statements do not inspire confidence of the Court all the
more when her conduct is so dubious that by way of
supplementary counter affidavit, she for the first time
introduced her marriage photographs with the applicant
and alleged that they have solemnized their marriage in
2021, straight before this Court and made no mention
about the said marriage in the contents of the FIR lodged in
2022 or during entire investigation.
11. In my considered view, this is not a case where
there was a false promise to marry. At most, it is a
consensual relationship, which turned sour and therefore,
it cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of
the State. Cases like these not only burden the Courts but
also blot the identity of the individual accused of such a
heinous offence. Even, the Hon’ble Apex Court has time
and again deprecated the filing of these kinds of cases.
12. Although, this Court is cognizant about the
riders on its power to quash proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C., but, the present case squarely falls under
categories enumerated in Para 102(5) and 102(7) as
identified by this Court in State of Haryana Vs Bhajan
Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 (Supra) for the exercise of powers
5
u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court so as to prevent the
abuse of process of law. Para 102 reads as under:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to
the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.”
13. Taking into consideration that the Appellant is
just 22 years of age, and has a lifetime ahead of him, it
would be in the interest of justice that he does not suffer an
impending trial and, therefore, the proceedings emanating
6
from Case Crime No.285 of 2022 dated 09.09.2022 are
liable to be quashed.
14. In view of the above, the C482 application is
allowed. Consequently, ex debitio justiciae, the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.1041 of 2022, State of
Uttarakhand Vs. Vikas, punishable u/s 376 and 506 IPC,
pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate,
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed.
Resultantly, the impugned charge-sheet dated 09.10.2022
stands quashed.
15. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
29.07.2025
PN