High Court
Case Details
Sri Gyanendra Pathak, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama and Short Counter Affidavit on behalf of the informant/opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record. Office is directed to print the name of Sri Gyanendra Pathak, Advocate as counsel for the informant/opposite party no. 2 when the case is listed next. Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyanendra Pathak, Advocate, assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., now section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, has been filed with the prayer to set aside the entire criminal prosecution of the Session Trial No. 958 of 2025, State Vs Dharmendra Pratap Singh, arising out of First Information Report/Case Crime No. 305 of 2024, under sections 323,506,376(2)(n) of I.P.C., Police Station-Madiyaon, District-Lucknow, vis-a-vis the chargesheet dated 23-06-2024 and the summoning order dated 23-04-2025, pending in the court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Lucknow. The prosecution case is that the opposite party no. 2 lodged the first information report on 13-05- 2024 alleging that she was in relation with the applicant since 2021 and the applicant has given assurance of marriage with her and thereafter, he called her in his house and forcibly established physical relationship but subsequently the applicant refused to marry with her. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that admittedly, the applicant and the informant-prosecutrix was in consensual relationship and when it was asked by the informant for performing marriage and the same was denied,being annoyed, the first information report has been lodged, wherein the allegation for committing rape is levelled. He submits that infact no offence is ever committed by the applicant and it all happens because of the denial of the marriage with the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention of this court towards the annexure no. 4, which is the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and submitted that from the bare reading of the said statement, it emerges that no threat or coercion is put for having the physical relation with the informant/prosecutrix and in the same breath, it is also stated that she would be ready to withdraw the criminal proceedings against the applicant, if the applicant would be ready to perform court marriage with her and the family members would also be ready to accept her as daughter-in-law. He added that these words indicate that there is an arm twisting tactics while lodging the first information report against the applicant while levelling the serious allegations and the applicant is facing hard with the criminal proceedings. It is further argued that the applicant and the prosecutrix are major and they were in physical relationship since long back, is an admitted fact and now, alleging that the rape has been committed with her, is not substantiated with any of the evidence and even the statement of the prosecturix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., also does not corroborate, strongly, the story of the prosecution. It has been argued that time and again, it has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if the parties were in consensual relationship for certain period of time and thereafter, the criminal proceeding is initiated by alleging that the rape was committed on the pretext of false promise of marriage, such act would not constitute the offence of rape. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the Judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2024 Legal Eagle (SC)1159, Prashant Vs State of NCT of Delhi (Paragraph nos. 17,18 & 19), 2025 AIR (SC) 2629, Amol Bhagwan Nehul Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.(Paragraph nos. 9 & 12),2025 Legal Eagle (SC)392, Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs State of West Bengal & Anr. (Paragraph no. 20),2025 AIR (SC) 2695, Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag Vs State of Telengana & Anr. (Paragraph no. 28),2025 Legal Eagle (SC) 326, Jothiragawan Vs State rep. by the Inspector of Police & Anr. (Paragraph nos. 10 & 11) and 2021 AIR (SC)1405 Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Paragraph nos. 7 & 11). Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the abovesaid Judgments and submitted that allowing the further criminal proceedings against the applicant in Case Crime No. 305 of 2024, would amount to harassment and is an utter abuse of process of law. Therefore, submission is that the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant may be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the informant-prosecutrix though, has opposed the matter on merit, but, he could not dispute the fact that the prosecutrix herself does not want to prosecute the applicant as she has filed an affidavit today before this court and stated in paragraph no. 3 of the same. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also opposed the matter on merits, but, he could not dispute the fact with respect to consensual relationship in between the parties as it emerges from the reading of the first information report as well as the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. He has also failed to dispute the narration of the fact in paragraph no. 3 of the Short Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the prosecutrix. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties after perusal of the records,prima- facie, it transpires that admittedly, the prosecutrix was in physical relationship with the applicant though, at certain places, it has been said that the applicant had committed rape with her, whereas, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., is also evident that she has not only stated that she was in physical relationship with the applicant, but, she also put a condition that she is ready to withdraw the criminal proceedings against the applicant if he is ready to marry with her. This court has also noticed the averments made in paragraph no. 3 of the Short Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the prosecutrix that the deponent does not want to prosecute the applicant though, as per the settled proposition, the offence is against the state, but a reading of the narrative of the first information report as well as the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C., it reveals that the prosecutrix infact was willing to marry with the applicant and once there was a denial, being annoyed, she lodged the first information report while making allegation of committing rape. This court is also mindful to the law rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as mentioned above. In view of foregoing reasons this court finds that the matter requires consideration. Let detailed Counter Affidavit be filed by the opposite parties within three weeks. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter. List/put up this matter in the Third Week of September, 2025. Till the next date of listing, the criminal proceedings of the case arising out of Session Trial No. 958 of 2025, State Vs Dharmendra Pratap Singh, arising out of First Information Report/Case Crime No. 305 of 2024, under sections 323,506,376(2)(n) of I.P.C., Police Station- Madiyaon, District-Lucknow, pending in the court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Lucknow, shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicant is concerned. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 AKS
Sri Gyanendra Pathak, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama and Short Counter Affidavit on behalf of the informant/opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record. Office is directed to print the name of Sri Gyanendra Pathak, Advocate as counsel for the informant/opposite party no. 2 when the case is listed next. Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyanendra Pathak, Advocate, assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., now section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, has been filed with the prayer to set aside the entire criminal prosecution of the Session Trial No. 958 of 2025, State Vs Dharmendra Pratap Singh, arising out of First Information Report/Case Crime No. 305 of 2024, under sections 323,506,376(2)(n) of I.P.C., Police Station-Madiyaon, District-Lucknow, vis-a-vis the chargesheet dated 23-06-2024 and the summoning order dated 23-04-2025, pending in the court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Lucknow. The prosecution case is that the opposite party no. 2 lodged the first information report on 13-05- 2024 alleging that she was in relation with the applicant since 2021 and the applicant has given assurance of marriage with her and thereafter, he called her in his house and forcibly established physical relationship but subsequently the applicant refused to marry with her. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that admittedly, the applicant and the informant-prosecutrix was in consensual relationship and when it was asked by the informant for performing marriage and the same was denied,being annoyed, the first information report has been lodged, wherein the allegation for committing rape is levelled. He submits that infact no offence is ever committed by the applicant and it all happens because of the denial of the marriage with the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention of this court towards the annexure no. 4, which is the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and submitted that from the bare reading of the said statement, it emerges that no threat or coercion is put for having the physical relation with the informant/prosecutrix and in the same breath, it is also stated that she would be ready to withdraw the criminal proceedings against the applicant, if the applicant would be ready to perform court marriage with her and the family members would also be ready to accept her as daughter-in-law. He added that these words indicate that there is an arm twisting tactics while lodging the first information report against the applicant while levelling the serious allegations and the applicant is facing hard with the criminal proceedings. It is further argued that the applicant and the prosecutrix are major and they were in physical relationship since long back, is an admitted fact and now, alleging that the rape has been committed with her, is not substantiated with any of the evidence and even the statement of the prosecturix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., also does not corroborate, strongly, the story of the prosecution. It has been argued that time and again, it has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if the parties were in consensual relationship for certain period of time and thereafter, the criminal proceeding is initiated by alleging that the rape was committed on the pretext of false promise of marriage, such act would not constitute the offence of rape. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the Judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2024 Legal Eagle (SC)1159, Prashant Vs State of NCT of Delhi (Paragraph nos. 17,18 & 19), 2025 AIR (SC) 2629, Amol Bhagwan Nehul Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.(Paragraph nos. 9 & 12),2025 Legal Eagle (SC)392, Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs State of West Bengal & Anr. (Paragraph no. 20),2025 AIR (SC) 2695, Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag Vs State of Telengana & Anr. (Paragraph no. 28),2025 Legal Eagle (SC) 326, Jothiragawan Vs State rep. by the Inspector of Police & Anr. (Paragraph nos. 10 & 11) and 2021 AIR (SC)1405 Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Paragraph nos. 7 & 11). Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the abovesaid Judgments and submitted that allowing the further criminal proceedings against the applicant in Case Crime No. 305 of 2024, would amount to harassment and is an utter abuse of process of law. Therefore, submission is that the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant may be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the informant-prosecutrix though, has opposed the matter on merit, but, he could not dispute the fact that the prosecutrix herself does not want to prosecute the applicant as she has filed an affidavit today before this court and stated in paragraph no. 3 of the same. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also opposed the matter on merits, but, he could not dispute the fact with respect to consensual relationship in between the parties as it emerges from the reading of the first information report as well as the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. He has also failed to dispute the narration of the fact in paragraph no. 3 of the Short Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the prosecutrix. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties after perusal of the records,prima- facie, it transpires that admittedly, the prosecutrix was in physical relationship with the applicant though, at certain places, it has been said that the applicant had committed rape with her, whereas, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., is also evident that she has not only stated that she was in physical relationship with the applicant, but, she also put a condition that she is ready to withdraw the criminal proceedings against the applicant if he is ready to marry with her. This court has also noticed the averments made in paragraph no. 3 of the Short Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the prosecutrix that the deponent does not want to prosecute the applicant though, as per the settled proposition, the offence is against the state, but a reading of the narrative of the first information report as well as the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C., it reveals that the prosecutrix infact was willing to marry with the applicant and once there was a denial, being annoyed, she lodged the first information report while making allegation of committing rape. This court is also mindful to the law rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as mentioned above. In view of foregoing reasons this court finds that the matter requires consideration. Let detailed Counter Affidavit be filed by the opposite parties within three weeks. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter. List/put up this matter in the Third Week of September, 2025. Till the next date of listing, the criminal proceedings of the case arising out of Session Trial No. 958 of 2025, State Vs Dharmendra Pratap Singh, arising out of First Information Report/Case Crime No. 305 of 2024, under sections 323,506,376(2)(n) of I.P.C., Police Station- Madiyaon, District-Lucknow, pending in the court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Lucknow, shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicant is concerned. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 AKS