The Uttarakhand High Court quashed a charge-sheet and cognizance order for offences under Sections 376, 323 and 506 IPC, holding that a two-year live-in relationship between consenting adults, followed by an FIR lodged only after the man declined marriage, constitutes an abuse of process. The Court applied the Supreme Court's triple test from Sonu alias Subhash Kumar and the presumption of implied consent in long-drawn cohabitation from Ravish Singh Rana to conclude the proceedings were vexatious.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Harshit Nagarkoti, sought quashing of a charge-sheet and subsequent cognizance order arising from an FIR registered by a 28-year-old widow with two children. The complainant alleged that the applicant, then aged 21, forcibly established physical relations with her on 09.11.2020, promised marriage and adoption of her children, persuaded her to relocate to Haldwani, cohabited for nearly two years, and finally assaulted and threatened her when she pressed for marriage in August 2022.
Key Facts
- 19.05.2019: Complainant's husband passed away, leaving her emotionally vulnerable.
- November 2020: Complainant and applicant became acquainted through Facebook and began communicating on social media.
- 09.11.2020: Complainant attended a marriage ceremony at Fatehpur, PS Haldwani; applicant called her to meet in Haldwani market, took her to his room, and allegedly forcibly made physical relations against her will.
- Applicant assured her he would marry her and adopt her children.
- 2021: Complainant moved from Jainti, Almora to Haldwani with her children and started living near the applicant's room.
- August 2011: Complainant began residing in Haldwani; whenever applicant changed rooms, he arranged a room for her nearby.
- 11.08.2022: Complainant confronted applicant about postponing marriage; applicant allegedly committed "marpeet" (assault) and criminally intimidated her regarding her children.
- 06.12.2022: FIR No. 0298/2022 registered at PS Mukhani under Sections 376, 323, 506 IPC - nearly two years after the first alleged incident.
- 03.02.2023: Charge-sheet No. 45/23 filed under Sections 323, 376, 506 IPC.
- 14.03.2023: Cognizance taken and summons issued by 2nd Additional Civil Judge/JM Haldwani in Criminal Case No. 1243/2023.
- Applicant is seven years younger than complainant (21 vs 28).
- Instagram chats (Annexure 6) produced by applicant show complainant initiating contact; no evidence of assault or breach of trust apparent from chats.
Procedural History
- 06.12.2022: FIR No. 0298/2022 registered at PS Mukhani.
- 03.02.2023: Charge-sheet No. 45/23 filed.
- 14.03.2023: Cognizance and summoning order passed by 2nd Additional Civil Judge/JM Haldwani.
- 2023: Criminal Misc. Application No. 1826/2023 filed under Section 482 CrPC before Uttarakhand High Court.
- 20.08.2026: Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the charge-sheet dated 03.02.2023, the cognizance and summoning order dated 14.03.2023, and the consequent criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1243/2023.
The Legal Issue
Whether criminal proceedings for rape under Section 376 IPC can be sustained where the complainant, a major adult, cohabited with the accused for approximately two years after the alleged initial forcible incident, relocated at his instance, continued the relationship voluntarily, and lodged the FIR only after the accused expressed disinclination to marry - and whether such proceedings amount to an abuse of process warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Counsel submitted that the FIR itself reveals a consensual relationship: the complainant, a 28-year-old widow, voluntarily moved to Haldwani with her children in August 2021, lived near the applicant for over a year, and continued physical relations. The seven-year age gap (applicant 21, complainant 28) and the nearly two-year delay in filing the FIR (first incident November 2020, FIR December 2022) undermine the prosecution case. Reliance was placed on Sonu alias Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 18 SCC 517, where the Supreme Court identified three features - consensual relationship, duration of one-and-a-half years, and FIR triggered by disinclination to marry - and quashed proceedings. Instagram chats (Annexure 6) showed the complainant initiating contact, with no suggestion of assault or breach of trust. The allegation of "marpeet" and threat on 11.08.2022 was bald and unsupported.
For the Respondent/State
The State argued that the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC corroborated the FIR allegations, providing sufficient material at the cognizance stage to proceed for rape. The AGA fairly conceded factual similarity to Sonu but distinguished it on the ground that the present case involves an additional element of threat to the victim's children, which was absent in the cited precedent. Counsel for respondent no. 3 adopted the State's submissions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the FIR, charge-sheet, and Section 164 statements holistically. It noted that although the first incident on 09.11.2020 was alleged to be forcible, the complainant's subsequent conduct - silence for months, relocation to Haldwani with children in August 2021 at the applicant's instance, continued cohabitation and physical relations for over a year, and lodging the FIR only in December 2022 after the applicant showed disinclination to marry in August 2022 - was inconsistent with a narrative of continuing coercion.
"From the further perusal of the FIR, it is evident that though the first incident was alleged to be forcible, the informant/respondent No. 3 has herself come to Haldwani along with her children and started living since the month of August, 2021 near to wherever the applicant used to reside."
The Court invoked the Supreme Court's decision in Jothiragawan v. State (2025 SCC OnLine SC 628), where repeated voluntary accompaniment to hotel rooms after alleged coercive incidents led to quashing as abuse of process. Similarly, in Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1055), a two-year live-in relationship with cohabitation in rented accommodation gave rise to a presumption of implied consent, rendering the promise-to-marry allegation "unworthy of acceptance" absent any claim that the physical relationship would not have occurred without such promise.
"In a long drawn live-in relationship, occasions may arise where parties in that relationship express their desire or wish to formalize the same by a seal of marriage, but that expression of desire, or wish, by itself would not be indicative of relationship being a consequence of that expression of desire or wish."
Applying the triple test from Sonu - (1) consensual relationship, (2) duration of about two years, (3) FIR triggered by disinclination to marry - the Court found all three satisfied. The alleged forcible incident of 09.11.2020 was subsumed by the subsequent voluntary conduct, covered by Jothiragawan. The long-drawn cohabitation attracted the Ravish Singh Rana presumption of valid consent. The Court concluded the proceedings were "nothing but an abuse of process of law" and invoked Section 482 CrPC to prevent such abuse.
The Verdict
The Criminal Misc. Application was allowed. The charge-sheet No. 45/23 dated 03.02.2023 pursuant to FIR No. 0298/2022 PS Mukhani, and the cognizance and summoning order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge/JM Haldwani in Criminal Case No. 1243/2023 (State v. Harshit Nagarkoti under Sections 376, 323, 506 IPC) were quashed. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consensual Cohabitation Negates Subsequent Rape Allegation
Where a major woman voluntarily cohabits with a man for an extended period after the alleged initial forcible incident, relocates at his instance, and continues the relationship without complaint, courts will presume implied consent. The mere fact that the relationship later sours because the man refuses marriage does not retroactively convert consensual acts into rape. Practitioners should highlight the complainant's post-incident conduct - relocation, continued cohabitation, delay in reporting - as evidence of consent.
Delay Coupled With Voluntary Conduct Is Fatal to Prosecution
A delay of nearly two years in filing the FIR, combined with the complainant's voluntary actions (moving cities, living near the accused, continuing intimacy), strongly indicates the complaint is motivated by the breakdown of the relationship rather than the alleged offence. The Sonu triple test - consensual nature, substantial duration, FIR triggered by marriage refusal - provides a clear framework for quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Threat Allegations Require Corroboration Beyond Bald Assertions
The State's attempt to distinguish Sonu on the basis of threats to the complainant's children failed because the threat allegation was unsupported by any material beyond the FIR and Section 164 statement. Instagram chats showed the complainant initiating contact. Courts will not allow vague threat allegations to sustain proceedings where the overall conspectus points to a consensual live-in relationship. Defence counsel should produce digital communications and conduct analysis to demonstrate the absence of coercion.
- Actionable: In Section 482 applications, compile a timeline of post-incident conduct (relocation, cohabitation, communications) to establish voluntary participation.
- Actionable: Cite Sonu, Jothiragawan, and Ravish Singh Rana as a trilogy governing promise-to-marry rape cases involving live-in relationships.
- Actionable: Argue that Section 164 statements merely repeating FIR allegations add no independent corroboration when the FIR itself reveals consensual conduct.
