MAHENDRA TOMAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C482/710/2022
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) Section 376. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 02nd June 2026.
CNR: UKHC010064212022
Filing Number
C482/3543/2022
Filing Date
18-05-2022
Registration No
C482/710/2022
Registration Date
18-05-2022
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
APPLICATIONS ( 5 )
Sub-Category
RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS OF OTHER COMPLAINT CASE ( 4 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
02nd June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MAHENDRA TOMAR
Adv. SANDEEP KOTHARI
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
SHEELA
Adv. NAMAN KAMBOJ,KAPIL PRASAD GAUR VIPIN SINGH
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
PRIORITY STAYED MATTERS -270
ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22
ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22
ORDER ON APPLICATIONS (AS DEFECTIVE) -237
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-05-2022 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
| 02-06-2026 | PRIORITY STAYED MATTERS -270 |
| 19-08-2025 | ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22 |
| 24-06-2025 | ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22 |
| 02-05-2025 | ORDER ON APPLICATIONS (AS DEFECTIVE) -237 |
Orders
Case Summary: C482/710/2022 The Uttarakhand High Court quashed the cognizance order and criminal proceedings against Mahendra Tomar under Section 376 IPC. The court held that since both parties were consenting adults with genuine marriage negotiations ongoing between their families at the time of the alleged sexual relations, the allegations do not constitute rape. The court distinguished between a promise of marriage that is false from inception versus one that subsequently fails, finding no evidence that the applicant never intended marriage, thus negating the elements of rape under Section 376 IPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C482/710/2022 The Uttarakhand High Court quashed the cognizance order and criminal proceedings against Mahendra Tomar under Section 376 IPC. The court held that since both parties were consenting adults with genuine marriage negotiations ongoing between their families at the time of the alleged sexual relations, the allegations do not constitute rape. The court distinguished between a promise of marriage that is false from inception versus one that subsequently fails, finding no evidence that the applicant never intended marriage, thus negating the elements of rape under Section 376 IPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts