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.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010064212022

Filing Number

C482/3543/2022

Filing Date

18-May-2022

Registration No

C482/710/2022

Registration Date

18-May-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

02-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) Section 376

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MAHENDRA TOMAR

    Adv. SANDEEP KOTHARI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

  2. 2.SHEELA

    Adv. NAMAN KAMBOJ,KAPIL PRASAD GAUR VIPIN SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    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.

  3. 02-Jun-2026

    Priority Stayed Matters -270

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

  4. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

  5. 19-Aug-2025

    Orders On Applications -22

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

  6. 24-Jun-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj PurohitView PDF

  7. 24-Jun-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj PurohitView PDF

  8. 24-Jun-2025

    Orders On Applications -22

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

  9. 02-May-2025

    Order On Applications (As Defective) -237

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

  10. 16-Apr-2025

    Order On Applications (As Defective) -237

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

  11. 27-Mar-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj PurohitView PDF

  12. 02-Apr-2024

    For Final Hearing -40

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal

  13. 04-Mar-2024

    Orders On Applications -22

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal

  14. 27-Jul-2023

    Admission Matters -25

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani

  15. 19-Jul-2023

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sharad Kumar SharmaView PDF

  16. 09-Jun-2023

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sharad Kumar SharmaView PDF

  17. 16-May-2023

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra MaithaniView PDF

  18. 12-May-2023

    Admission Matters -25

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani

  19. 01-Dec-2022

    Orders On Applications -22

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma

  20. 24-Nov-2022

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sharad Kumar SharmaView PDF

  21. 24-Jun-2022

    Admission Matters (After Fresh) -30

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Verma

  22. 09-Jun-2022

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar VermaView PDF

  23. 09-Jun-2022

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Verma

  24. 19-May-2022

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar VermaView PDF

  25. 19-May-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 18-May-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. C482/710/2022

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case