9 October 2026: The
Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand allowed a criminal revision against an order directing the
framing of a charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and
quashed the Sessions Trial as against the revisionist.
The revision, decided by
Alok Mahra, J., challenged the order dated 22 April 2025 of the District and
Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2024. By that order,
the Sessions Court rejected the revisionist’s discharge application and
directed the framing of a charge under Section 376 of the IPC in Case Crime No.
42 of 2023, registered at Police Station Laxmanjhula, Pauri Garhwal. At the
outset, the High Court allowed an application for condonation of delay (IA No.
1 of 2025). Counsel for the revisionist also stated that an earlier criminal
miscellaneous application had been withdrawn.
As recorded in the order,
the revisionist and the complainant met through a matrimonial website in April
2023 and were in a relationship thereafter. The FIR alleges that physical
relations took place on 30 June 2023 and 15 August 2023, during trips to
Rishikesh and Coorg respectively. The order notes that the complaint, which
counsel for the revisionist submitted was filed in December 2023, sought action
under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
and that an FIR was lodged on it subsequently.
Counsel for the
revisionist submitted that, even if the contents of the FIR were taken at face
value, no offence under Section 376 of the IPC was made out, as the
relationship between the two adults was consensual. The State’s counsel
submitted that, at the stage of framing of charge, a court need only see
whether a prima facie case exists on the material on record and is not
expected to conduct a mini-trial. Counsel for the revisionist accepted that a
mini-trial cannot be held at that stage, but submitted that sufficient and
legally sustainable material must still exist. A counsel holding brief appeared
for respondent no. 2.
The High Court observed
that the parties were educated adults who entered the relationship voluntarily
and were mature enough to understand the nature and consequences of their
actions. It stated that the law cannot be invoked “to criminalize the mere
failure of a relationship”, and that the dissolution of a relationship does
not, by itself, give rise to criminal liability. The Court further noted that
the two alleged incidents took place while the parties were vacationing
together at tourist destinations alongside common friends, and that no protest
or prompt action was taken by the complainant afterwards.
Accordingly, the Court
allowed the criminal revision, set aside the order dated 22 April 2025, and
quashed the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2024 as against the
revisionist. No further listing is indicated in the order.
Source:
Case Name: Kunal Bhakat v.
State of Uttarakhand
Case Number: Criminal
Revision No. 556 of 2025 (CRLR/556/2025)
Bench: Hon’ble Alok Mahra,
J. (Single Judge)
Date: 9 October 2026
The content on this page is intended for general
informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Dharma Rath
Sarthi Legal Consultancy does not assume liability for any action taken in
reliance on this content. Readers are advised to seek independent legal counsel
for advice specific to their circumstances.