Irshad Ali v. State Of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

1. Sri Rakesh Pratap Singh, Advocate has filed power on behalf of the respondent no.2, which is taken on record. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is also taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. This application has been filed with the following prayer:- "To quash the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court-First, Lucknow in Session Trial No.1060 2025, (State of U.P. Versus Mohd. Shakeel and another), arising out of Case Crime No.0174 of 2024, under sections 120-B, 376, 506 IPC, Police Station- Saadatganj (Wrong mentioned as Police Station Para), District- Lucknow Western (Commissionerate Lucknow) as contained in Annexure no.1 to petition and discharge the petitioner from the alleged offence by allowing the Discharge Application U/S 227 Cr.P.C. as contained in Annexure no.10 to this petition, otherwise, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be made good in or any event."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution in question is initiated by the complainant/private respondent only with the intention to blackmail the applicant. He further submits that the F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged alleging therein that the complainant has first time met the applicant on 16.11.2023. Further allegations are 2 A482 No. 8801 of 2025 complainant, her uncle (fufa)- Md. Shakil and her aunt (fufi)- Kahkasha Alvi went to Deva, Barabanki in the applicant's car, where conversation was taken place between them. It is further alleged that the applicant advised the complainant to take divorce from her first husband, after that, he may solemnize nikah with her. Meanwhile, the complainant and the applicant had exchanged their mobile numbers and they started conversation. On

20.04.2024, the applicant called the complainant and told her for visiting his friend's house, but she refused. Thereafter, the applicant facilitated a call with Md. Shakil who informed the complainant for not worrying as he was also coming there. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that having believed on the statements of the applicant and her fufa, the complainant/victim went on the desired place of the applicant. The applicant took her to his friend's house near Sahadatganj police station. When the victim arrived there, no one was there. When she asked the applicant, he told her not to worry as his uncle was on his way. The applicant gave her a glass of cold drink and told her to drink it while her uncle arrived. Shortly after, the victim fell unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found her clothes in disarray. When the victim objected, the applicant told her that he would marry her, so don't tell anyone about it and let him drop her off near her house. The applicant dropped the victim off in his car at intersection between 2 and 2:30 p.m. The victim became depressed by the incident, and as a result, she did not disclose it to anyone. A few days later, on 15.05.2024, the applicant called the victim and said he need to discuss what had happened on 20.04.2024. The applicant then took her into his car from under the Transport Nagar Metro Station around 4:00 pm to 4:30 pm and asked her to drive her to his friend's house situated in Golden City, Campbell Road, Sahadatganj Police Station. When the victim refused, the applicant showed her an obscene video recorded on

20.04.2024, and told her that she must have sex with him, otherwise he would make the video viral and would not marry her. The victim became extremely frightened, and the applicant forcibly had sex with her against her will. The victim cried in front of the applicant, pleading with him to delete the video. The applicant told her that he would delete the video, if she would not tell anyone about the incident and if she would not do so, he would make the video viral. The applicant made the victim sit in his car and dropped her near Sarojini Nagar police station between 8:00 and 8:30 pm. On

12.06.2024, the complainant visited the electronic shop of the applicant and insisted him for deletion the video. Thereafter, the applicant blocked the number of the complainant and one day, the applicant met the victim near 3 A482 No. 8801 of 2025 her house and told that he would not solemnize nikah with her. It is next submitted that the prosecution story, as mentioned in the F.I.R., is highly imaginary as the sole basis of forceful physical relation with the married lady made by the applicant is a video, but no video was recovered by the Investigating Officer. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer did not collect the call detail records. Thereafter, she reiterated the version of the F.I.R. in her statements recorded u/s 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. The charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner without inquiring the place of the incident and drawing the site plan in accordance with provisions of Para 114 of U.P. Police Regulations. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naim Ahamed Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in (2023) 15 SCC 385 and on the judgment of this Court reported in Application u/s 482 No. 7001 of 2023 (Vinay Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another), learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant is a married prudent lady who has one son and the entire prosecution story is only for blackmailing the applicant who is running an electronic shop, hence, indulgence of this Court is required.

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant. They jointly submit that the victim has supported the prosecution story in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S. However, they do not dispute the fact that no alleged video was recovered by the Investigating Officer, which is the sole basis of the forceful physical relation made with the complainant by the applicant.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record including the victim's statements recorded u/s 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., it is evident that the sole basis of the prosecution in question is the alleged video, which is not recovered by the Investigating Officer during investigation.

7. In view of above, the matter requires consideration.

8. List this case in the second week of January, 2026.

9. In the meantime, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant 4 A482 No. 8801 of 2025 may file counter affidavit.

10. Office is directed to show the name of Sri Sri Rakesh Pratap Singh, Advocate as the counsel for the respondent no.2 in the cause list.

11. Until further order, the impugned proceedings shall remain stayed. November 17, 2025 Arpan (Rajeev Singh,J.)

1. Sri Rakesh Pratap Singh, Advocate has filed power on behalf of the respondent no.2, which is taken on record. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is also taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. This application has been filed with the following prayer:- "To quash the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court-First, Lucknow in Session Trial No.1060 2025, (State of U.P. Versus Mohd. Shakeel and another), arising out of Case Crime No.0174 of 2024, under sections 120-B, 376, 506 IPC, Police Station- Saadatganj (Wrong mentioned as Police Station Para), District- Lucknow Western (Commissionerate Lucknow) as contained in Annexure no.1 to petition and discharge the petitioner from the alleged offence by allowing the Discharge Application U/S 227 Cr.P.C. as contained in Annexure no.10 to this petition, otherwise, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be made good in or any event."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution in question is initiated by the complainant/private respondent only with the intention to blackmail the applicant. He further submits that the F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged alleging therein that the complainant has first time met the applicant on 16.11.2023. Further allegations are 2 A482 No. 8801 of 2025 complainant, her uncle (fufa)- Md. Shakil and her aunt (fufi)- Kahkasha Alvi went to Deva, Barabanki in the applicant's car, where conversation was taken place between them. It is further alleged that the applicant advised the complainant to take divorce from her first husband, after that, he may solemnize nikah with her. Meanwhile, the complainant and the applicant had exchanged their mobile numbers and they started conversation. On

20.04.2024, the applicant called the complainant and told her for visiting his friend's house, but she refused. Thereafter, the applicant facilitated a call with Md. Shakil who informed the complainant for not worrying as he was also coming there. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that having believed on the statements of the applicant and her fufa, the complainant/victim went on the desired place of the applicant. The applicant took her to his friend's house near Sahadatganj police station. When the victim arrived there, no one was there. When she asked the applicant, he told her not to worry as his uncle was on his way. The applicant gave her a glass of cold drink and told her to drink it while her uncle arrived. Shortly after, the victim fell unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found her clothes in disarray. When the victim objected, the applicant told her that he would marry her, so don't tell anyone about it and let him drop her off near her house. The applicant dropped the victim off in his car at intersection between 2 and 2:30 p.m. The victim became depressed by the incident, and as a result, she did not disclose it to anyone. A few days later, on 15.05.2024, the applicant called the victim and said he need to discuss what had happened on 20.04.2024. The applicant then took her into his car from under the Transport Nagar Metro Station around 4:00 pm to 4:30 pm and asked her to drive her to his friend's house situated in Golden City, Campbell Road, Sahadatganj Police Station. When the victim refused, the applicant showed her an obscene video recorded on

20.04.2024, and told her that she must have sex with him, otherwise he would make the video viral and would not marry her. The victim became extremely frightened, and the applicant forcibly had sex with her against her will. The victim cried in front of the applicant, pleading with him to delete the video. The applicant told her that he would delete the video, if she would not tell anyone about the incident and if she would not do so, he would make the video viral. The applicant made the victim sit in his car and dropped her near Sarojini Nagar police station between 8:00 and 8:30 pm. On

12.06.2024, the complainant visited the electronic shop of the applicant and insisted him for deletion the video. Thereafter, the applicant blocked the number of the complainant and one day, the applicant met the victim near 3 A482 No. 8801 of 2025 her house and told that he would not solemnize nikah with her. It is next submitted that the prosecution story, as mentioned in the F.I.R., is highly imaginary as the sole basis of forceful physical relation with the married lady made by the applicant is a video, but no video was recovered by the Investigating Officer. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer did not collect the call detail records. Thereafter, she reiterated the version of the F.I.R. in her statements recorded u/s 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. The charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner without inquiring the place of the incident and drawing the site plan in accordance with provisions of Para 114 of U.P. Police Regulations. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naim Ahamed Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in (2023) 15 SCC 385 and on the judgment of this Court reported in Application u/s 482 No. 7001 of 2023 (Vinay Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another), learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant is a married prudent lady who has one son and the entire prosecution story is only for blackmailing the applicant who is running an electronic shop, hence, indulgence of this Court is required.

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant. They jointly submit that the victim has supported the prosecution story in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S. However, they do not dispute the fact that no alleged video was recovered by the Investigating Officer, which is the sole basis of the forceful physical relation made with the complainant by the applicant.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record including the victim's statements recorded u/s 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., it is evident that the sole basis of the prosecution in question is the alleged video, which is not recovered by the Investigating Officer during investigation.

7. In view of above, the matter requires consideration.

8. List this case in the second week of January, 2026.

9. In the meantime, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant 4 A482 No. 8801 of 2025 may file counter affidavit.

10. Office is directed to show the name of Sri Sri Rakesh Pratap Singh, Advocate as the counsel for the respondent no.2 in the cause list.

11. Until further order, the impugned proceedings shall remain stayed. November 17, 2025 Arpan (Rajeev Singh,J.)