State v. Aman Ansari) under Sections

3. Contention put-forth by learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that the FIR has been lodged after an application instituted by the victim under Section 156(3) CrPC and there is no truthfulness in the same. He submits that in fact the allegation is that on the false pretext of performing marriage the rape has been committed upon the prosecutrix, whereas from the statement of the victim read with allegation in the FIR, it transpires that there was prior sweet relation with the applicant and thereafter the allegation regarding committing rape is levelled under the false pretext of marriage. He added that in fact the applicant was aged about 14 years at the time of lodging of the FIR and the alleged victim was aged 21 years and he further submits that there could not be any promise of marriage with the applicant as the applicant was not major at the time of alleged incident. He next added that in fact it is a case of consensual relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix and due to [ 2 ] certain anguish, the FIR has been lodged. He also argued that the case of the applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Amol Bhagwan Nehul Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. passed in SLP (Crl.) No.10044 of 2024 referred paragraphs-9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment, which read as under:- “9. In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence. This Court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it a folly3 to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC.

10. As demonstrated hereinabove, the ingredients of the offence under Sections 376 (2)(n) or 506 IPC are not established. The present case squarely falls under categories enumerated in Para 102(5) & 102(7) as identified by this Court in State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (supra) for the exercise of powers u/s 482 CrPC by the High Court so as to prevent the abuse of process of law. Para 102 reads as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list [ 3 ] of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. and other materials, (2) Where the allegations in the first information report any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the [ 4 ] proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

4. While placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, he submits that the case of the applicant is also of consensual relationship turning sour and resulting into lodging of the FIR and, therefore, the criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicant is an abuse of process of court and law and the same may be quashed.

5. Learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and there is specific and serious allegation against him for committing rape upon the prosecutrix. Thus, he is not entitled for any relief.

6. Prima facie, it seems that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of judgment in Amol Bhagwan Nehul (supra), therefore, the matter requires consideration.

7. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, on taking appropriate steps within one week, returnable at an early date.

8. List/put up this matter in the 3rd week of September, 2025.

9. In the meantime, opposite parties may file counter affidavit.

10. Till the next date of listing, the further proceeding of Case No.38/2025 (State Vs. Aman Ansari), under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri, shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 MVS/- [Shree Prakash Singh,J.]

3. Contention put-forth by learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that the FIR has been lodged after an application instituted by the victim under Section 156(3) CrPC and there is no truthfulness in the same. He submits that in fact the allegation is that on the false pretext of performing marriage the rape has been committed upon the prosecutrix, whereas from the statement of the victim read with allegation in the FIR, it transpires that there was prior sweet relation with the applicant and thereafter the allegation regarding committing rape is levelled under the false pretext of marriage. He added that in fact the applicant was aged about 14 years at the time of lodging of the FIR and the alleged victim was aged 21 years and he further submits that there could not be any promise of marriage with the applicant as the applicant was not major at the time of alleged incident. He next added that in fact it is a case of consensual relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix and due to [ 2 ] certain anguish, the FIR has been lodged. He also argued that the case of the applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Amol Bhagwan Nehul Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. passed in SLP (Crl.) No.10044 of 2024 referred paragraphs-9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment, which read as under:- “9. In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence. This Court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it a folly3 to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC.

10. As demonstrated hereinabove, the ingredients of the offence under Sections 376 (2)(n) or 506 IPC are not established. The present case squarely falls under categories enumerated in Para 102(5) & 102(7) as identified by this Court in State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (supra) for the exercise of powers u/s 482 CrPC by the High Court so as to prevent the abuse of process of law. Para 102 reads as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list [ 3 ] of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. and other materials, (2) Where the allegations in the first information report any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the [ 4 ] proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

4. While placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, he submits that the case of the applicant is also of consensual relationship turning sour and resulting into lodging of the FIR and, therefore, the criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicant is an abuse of process of court and law and the same may be quashed.

5. Learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and there is specific and serious allegation against him for committing rape upon the prosecutrix. Thus, he is not entitled for any relief.

6. Prima facie, it seems that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of judgment in Amol Bhagwan Nehul (supra), therefore, the matter requires consideration.

7. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, on taking appropriate steps within one week, returnable at an early date.

8. List/put up this matter in the 3rd week of September, 2025.

9. In the meantime, opposite parties may file counter affidavit.

10. Till the next date of listing, the further proceeding of Case No.38/2025 (State Vs. Aman Ansari), under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri, shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 MVS/- [Shree Prakash Singh,J.]