High Court · 2025

agreed upon items. During phone calls, Rahul began abusing Anjali's parents and threatened to cancel the marriage. Afraid of public shame, Anjali didn't inform her parents about the unfolding events. On December 11, 2023, Rahul called Anjali over mobile phone and refused to marry her. When she informed her parents about it, they filed a written complaint in the police station where a compromise between the parties was arrived and it was agreed that each party will return each others money and other items and consequently the dispute was resolved. To avoid ignominy, Anjali kept the fact of her physical relationship with Rahul a secret. Despite the parties settling their dispute after police intervention, Rahul continued to threaten her by circulating objectionable photos on social media and sending defamatory messages from a fake Instagram ID. An application of the said facts was moved by the informant and consequently, an F.I.R., bearing Case Crime No. 15 of 2024 was lodged against the revisionist Rahul and his family members under Sections 328, 376, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'Penal Code'), and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961').

4. During investigation, evidence of implication against family members was not found, and no evidence of miscarriage was discovered. Consequently, the family members of Rahul were exonerated, and charges under Section 328 of the Penal Code were dropped. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet against the revisionist was submitted under Sections 376/504 of the Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Act of 1961.

5. Committal proceedings took place and thereafter, when the case was committed before the Sessions Court, the revisionist filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code'), which was rejected vide the impugned order.

6. Learned Counsel for revisionist has submitted that from a bare reading of the First Information Report, it is evident that the compromise between the revisionist and the informant took place after their marriage was annulled. The said compromise has been signed by the revisionist and the informant in the presence of two witnesses on 19.12.2023 and it was settled that no further legal action will be taken. The said compromise is a part of the case diary and witnesses of compromise were also examined by the Investigating Officer, who have verified the compromise. Both parties are major and averments made in F.I.R. suggest that physical relationship between the two have taken place by consent. Statement of the informant under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code is on record.

7. The victim has stated that she was administered alcohol by the revisionist and when she lost her consciousness, she was subjected to physical relationship without her consent. The said statement is self-contradictory, because it cannot be assumed that a person, who has lost his/her consciousness, can tell what happened with him/her during his/her unconsciousness. Moreover, it is alleged that the victim was subjected to similar incidents on three occasions, which contradicts her version of events. Learned counsel submitted that said circumstances itself prove that incident as narrated is not possible because a woman, once ravished, will never meet the perpetrator again. But informant herself has stated that she met the revisionist twice in a hotel, despite being abused by the him on 02.10.2023.

8. It was further submitted that the informant herself had stated before the Investigating Officer (for short 'I.O.') that when the revisionist saw her in photographs of Haldi ceremony with one Nitesh Sharma, he became annoyed. The cousin of the informant, Smt. Soni Gupta, also stated that when Rahul received a photograph of victim with Nitesh Sharma, who is the friend of the victim's brother, he became angry and refused to marry. The victim also underwent a medical examination, and no evidence of sexual assault was found. The mobile phone of the revisionist was seized and investigated to verify the allegations of objectionable videos, but no concrete evidence emerged to support them. The victim has also alleged that she was administered contraceptive pill by the revisionist, which resulted in her abortion, but her medical report does not corroborate this fact. The learned counsel has stated that the I.O. had recorded statements of the victim's parents, witnesses present at the time of compromise and also of independent witnesses. If statement of all witnesses are read together, one can only conclude that proposed marriage between the parties was cancelled and parties also arrived at a compromise where it was agreed that the revisionist's father would return Rs. 5,50,000/- to the victim's father. The said compromise was arrived at in presence of informant as well as revisionist. It is also evident from the statement of witnesses that the cause which led the revisionist refusing to marry the informant was that he was annoyed with the victim when he saw her photograph with one Nitesh, which was clicked at the time of Haldi ceremony. However, a belated F.I.R. was lodged by the informant on false allegations of rape, likely motivated by her own reasons, even when the entire controversy was set to rest by arriving at compromise.

9. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the victim has unequivocally stated in the F.I.R. that she was called by the revisionist in a hotel on three different dates. During all the three occasions, she was forced to drink alcohol and subjected to physical relations against her will. She has also mentioned that she forbade him to do so, but he persisted by referring to their proposed marriage. The learned Trial Court has taken note of victim's statement under Section 161 and 164 of the Code. Doubts cannot be raised on the statements made by the victim at the stage of framing charges on basis of conjectures and surmises. At the stage of framing charges, the Court has to be only prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. Courts at this stage can only evaluate materials and documents on record, but cannot appreciate the evidence. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code is sufficient to indicate that she was physically exploited by the revisionist on the pretext of their proposed marriage, which was later cancelled without any justifiable reason. In support of his argument, learned Counsel has placed reliance upon State of M.P. v. Mohan Lal Soni (2006) 6 SCC 338 and State of Orissa vs Devendra Nath Padhi,(2005) 1 SCC 568. Concluding his submission, learned A.G.A. said that statement of victim is unblemished and her statement can not be dismissed by placing materials unconnected with the alleged incident of sexual assault committed against her will.

10. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused Case Diary. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the informant and the revisionist was scheduled for December 13, 2023, but was later on cancelled. The F.I.R. also mentions that the parties reached a compromise in the presence of police personnel. The statements of Shivnaryan Gupta (the victim's father) and Renu Gupta (the victim's mother) were recorded. They have stated that respected members of society intervened and facilitated the agreement between the parties, which took place on 19.12.2023. Shivnarayan Gupta has mentioned that the agreement was reduced in writing and that he received Rs 5,50,000/- from Rahul for expenses incurred in booking of Guest House. Manoj alias Badri Prasad and Vijay Kumar Gupta, who are attesting witnesses of the compromise, have also verified the said compromise. The statements made by the prosecution witnesses establish that the dispute between the parties, that led to the cancellation of the proposed marriage, was amicably resolved. Its worth noting that the parents of the informant did not mention any demand for dowry in their statements before the I.O. Even the informant has not made any such allegation against the revisionist either in her F.I.R. or when her statement was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code. Hence, there is no evidence to establish charges under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, 1961.

11. So far as allegations under Section 376 of the Penal Code are concerned, they can only be decided by examining the F.I.R. and victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code. In her F.I.R., the victim stated that she was called in a hotel by revisionist on 02.10.2023, 07.10.2023 and 03.11.2023. During these visits, Rahul compelled her to consume alcoholic drinks by referring to their proposed marriage. Although she resisted, he made physical contact with her without her consent. When her statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code, the victim stated that she arrived at the hotel on Rahul's call. There, he himself drank alcohol and began pressuring her to drink too. When she refused, he assured her that nothing would happen. She eventually drank a little. After that, they had a relationship. Similarly, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code, she stated that Rahul called her in the hotel on 02.10.2023 and made her consume a certain drink, causing her to lose consciousness. Subsequently, he engaged in physical relationship with her. He also called her at the hotel on

07.10.2023 and 03.11.2023 and made physical relations with her. Additionally, he gave her a pill to consume. When she fell ill and visited the hospital, she discovered that she was pregnant and had suffered an abortion.

12. The informant has alleged that she was compelled to enter into a physical relationship with the revisionist against her will. In the F.I.R., she has mentioned that revisionist made physical relationship with her without her consent. Allegation of physical relationship without the informant's consent is absent in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code. In this statement of hers, she has stated that the incident occurred after she consumed alcohol, but her statement does not reflect that said relationship was established either during her unconsciousness or against her will. She has further stated that she visited the hotel on October 7, 2023, and November 3, 2023, but has not alleged that any physical relationship was established on these dates. However, when her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code, again she has stated that the revisionist entered into a physical relationship with her on October 2, 2023, after she had lost consciousness. She has further stated that relationship between them took place on October 7, 2023, and November 3, 2023, but has not alleged that these relationships were made when she was in an unconscious state or against her will.

13. Before recording any findings against the accused on the allegations that he committed rape on false promise of marriage, it will be relevant to refer observations of Supreme Court in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: "21. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage, a false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent involved was given after fully understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the prosecutor agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of misrepresentation made to her by the accused, or where an accused on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated differently. An accused can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches to a conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives."

14. The above judgement has distinguished between mere breach of promise and not fulfilling one. A person can be accused of making false promises of marriage if he has a malicious motive to deceive the victim. However, in this case, it is an admitted fact that the revisionist has not made a false promise of marriage; instead, the marriage was arranged and fixed by their parents. Moreover, the alleged relationship between the parties occurred after marriage was fixed, but before it was cancelled. It is evident from the statement made by parents of the informant and other witnesses that the revisionist was annoyed after seeing photos of the informant with one Nitesh. Therefore, it cannot be said that the victim was deceived in any manner by the revisionist before they had a physical relationship. Now, the question for consideration remains that whether statements of victim in this particular case is sufficient to establish the charge of rape. As mentioned earlier, the allegation against revisionist in F.I.R. is that he made physical relationship with victim on three occasions in a hotel while she was unconscious. Whereas when her statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code, the victim has simply stated that physical relationship was established between them after consuming drinks. Neither she has alleged that she was unconscious at that time nor it was without her consent. Similarly, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code, she has stated that on October 2, 2023, the revisionist made physical relationship with her while she was unconscious. But she has not alleged that any such incident occurred on the subsequent two dates. The statements of victim are in variance with each other on different occasions. In the F.I.R. and in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code, she alleges that physical relationship was established by the revisionist in state of her unconsciousness, whereas her statement under Section 161 of the Code reflects as if the said relationship was consensual.

15. Apart from the above facts, it is relevant to mention that a compromise was arrived at between the parties on December 19, 2023, as stated by the father of the informant, Shivnarayan Gupta. He has stated before the I.O. that said compromise was arrived at in the presence of the informant, the revisionist, and other witnesses, but fact of illicit relationship was not disclosed by his daughter at that time. Renu Gupta, the mother of the informant, has also corroborated this fact. It is unusual that the alleged act of revisionist was not disclosed by the informant to her parents till the compromise was reached, but was disclosed two months later by lodging the present F.I.R. Similarly, the allegation of administering contraceptive pill by revisionist, which was neither mentioned in F.I.R. nor during the victim's statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code, was levelled first time by the revisionist when her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code.

16. It is settled law that testimony of a rape victim shall be given privacy and if it is trustworthy, it needs no corroboration. But it is also trite law that testimony of a rape victim is not different from the testimony of any other witnesses and it has to be analysed in a similar manner. In this case, the statement of the victim and other witnesses available in the case diary, if read together, do not, prima facie, satisfy the allegations made by the informant.

17. Therefore, discharge application filed by the revisionst before learned Trial Court is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, impugned order dated 25.11.2024 is set aside and this criminal revision stands allowed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Ujjawal UJJAWAL UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

agreed upon items. During phone calls, Rahul began abusing Anjali's parents and threatened to cancel the marriage. Afraid of public shame, Anjali didn't inform her parents about the unfolding events. On December 11, 2023, Rahul called Anjali over mobile phone and refused to marry her. When she informed her parents about it, they filed a written complaint in the police station where a compromise between the parties was arrived and it was agreed that each party will return each others money and other items and consequently the dispute was resolved. To avoid ignominy, Anjali kept the fact of her physical relationship with Rahul a secret. Despite the parties settling their dispute after police intervention, Rahul continued to threaten her by circulating objectionable photos on social media and sending defamatory messages from a fake Instagram ID. An application of the said facts was moved by the informant and consequently, an F.I.R., bearing Case Crime No. 15 of 2024 was lodged against the revisionist Rahul and his family members under Sections 328, 376, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'Penal Code'), and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961').

4. During investigation, evidence of implication against family members was not found, and no evidence of miscarriage was discovered. Consequently, the family members of Rahul were exonerated, and charges under Section 328 of the Penal Code were dropped. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet against the revisionist was submitted under Sections 376/504 of the Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Act of 1961.

5. Committal proceedings took place and thereafter, when the case was committed before the Sessions Court, the revisionist filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code'), which was rejected vide the impugned order.

6. Learned Counsel for revisionist has submitted that from a bare reading of the First Information Report, it is evident that the compromise between the revisionist and the informant took place after their marriage was annulled. The said compromise has been signed by the revisionist and the informant in the presence of two witnesses on 19.12.2023 and it was settled that no further legal action will be taken. The said compromise is a part of the case diary and witnesses of compromise were also examined by the Investigating Officer, who have verified the compromise. Both parties are major and averments made in F.I.R. suggest that physical relationship between the two have taken place by consent. Statement of the informant under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code is on record.

7. The victim has stated that she was administered alcohol by the revisionist and when she lost her consciousness, she was subjected to physical relationship without her consent. The said statement is self-contradictory, because it cannot be assumed that a person, who has lost his/her consciousness, can tell what happened with him/her during his/her unconsciousness. Moreover, it is alleged that the victim was subjected to similar incidents on three occasions, which contradicts her version of events. Learned counsel submitted that said circumstances itself prove that incident as narrated is not possible because a woman, once ravished, will never meet the perpetrator again. But informant herself has stated that she met the revisionist twice in a hotel, despite being abused by the him on 02.10.2023.

8. It was further submitted that the informant herself had stated before the Investigating Officer (for short 'I.O.') that when the revisionist saw her in photographs of Haldi ceremony with one Nitesh Sharma, he became annoyed. The cousin of the informant, Smt. Soni Gupta, also stated that when Rahul received a photograph of victim with Nitesh Sharma, who is the friend of the victim's brother, he became angry and refused to marry. The victim also underwent a medical examination, and no evidence of sexual assault was found. The mobile phone of the revisionist was seized and investigated to verify the allegations of objectionable videos, but no concrete evidence emerged to support them. The victim has also alleged that she was administered contraceptive pill by the revisionist, which resulted in her abortion, but her medical report does not corroborate this fact. The learned counsel has stated that the I.O. had recorded statements of the victim's parents, witnesses present at the time of compromise and also of independent witnesses. If statement of all witnesses are read together, one can only conclude that proposed marriage between the parties was cancelled and parties also arrived at a compromise where it was agreed that the revisionist's father would return Rs. 5,50,000/- to the victim's father. The said compromise was arrived at in presence of informant as well as revisionist. It is also evident from the statement of witnesses that the cause which led the revisionist refusing to marry the informant was that he was annoyed with the victim when he saw her photograph with one Nitesh, which was clicked at the time of Haldi ceremony. However, a belated F.I.R. was lodged by the informant on false allegations of rape, likely motivated by her own reasons, even when the entire controversy was set to rest by arriving at compromise.

9. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the victim has unequivocally stated in the F.I.R. that she was called by the revisionist in a hotel on three different dates. During all the three occasions, she was forced to drink alcohol and subjected to physical relations against her will. She has also mentioned that she forbade him to do so, but he persisted by referring to their proposed marriage. The learned Trial Court has taken note of victim's statement under Section 161 and 164 of the Code. Doubts cannot be raised on the statements made by the victim at the stage of framing charges on basis of conjectures and surmises. At the stage of framing charges, the Court has to be only prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. Courts at this stage can only evaluate materials and documents on record, but cannot appreciate the evidence. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code is sufficient to indicate that she was physically exploited by the revisionist on the pretext of their proposed marriage, which was later cancelled without any justifiable reason. In support of his argument, learned Counsel has placed reliance upon State of M.P. v. Mohan Lal Soni (2006) 6 SCC 338 and State of Orissa vs Devendra Nath Padhi,(2005) 1 SCC 568. Concluding his submission, learned A.G.A. said that statement of victim is unblemished and her statement can not be dismissed by placing materials unconnected with the alleged incident of sexual assault committed against her will.

10. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused Case Diary. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the informant and the revisionist was scheduled for December 13, 2023, but was later on cancelled. The F.I.R. also mentions that the parties reached a compromise in the presence of police personnel. The statements of Shivnaryan Gupta (the victim's father) and Renu Gupta (the victim's mother) were recorded. They have stated that respected members of society intervened and facilitated the agreement between the parties, which took place on 19.12.2023. Shivnarayan Gupta has mentioned that the agreement was reduced in writing and that he received Rs 5,50,000/- from Rahul for expenses incurred in booking of Guest House. Manoj alias Badri Prasad and Vijay Kumar Gupta, who are attesting witnesses of the compromise, have also verified the said compromise. The statements made by the prosecution witnesses establish that the dispute between the parties, that led to the cancellation of the proposed marriage, was amicably resolved. Its worth noting that the parents of the informant did not mention any demand for dowry in their statements before the I.O. Even the informant has not made any such allegation against the revisionist either in her F.I.R. or when her statement was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code. Hence, there is no evidence to establish charges under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, 1961.

11. So far as allegations under Section 376 of the Penal Code are concerned, they can only be decided by examining the F.I.R. and victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code. In her F.I.R., the victim stated that she was called in a hotel by revisionist on 02.10.2023, 07.10.2023 and 03.11.2023. During these visits, Rahul compelled her to consume alcoholic drinks by referring to their proposed marriage. Although she resisted, he made physical contact with her without her consent. When her statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code, the victim stated that she arrived at the hotel on Rahul's call. There, he himself drank alcohol and began pressuring her to drink too. When she refused, he assured her that nothing would happen. She eventually drank a little. After that, they had a relationship. Similarly, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code, she stated that Rahul called her in the hotel on 02.10.2023 and made her consume a certain drink, causing her to lose consciousness. Subsequently, he engaged in physical relationship with her. He also called her at the hotel on

07.10.2023 and 03.11.2023 and made physical relations with her. Additionally, he gave her a pill to consume. When she fell ill and visited the hospital, she discovered that she was pregnant and had suffered an abortion.

12. The informant has alleged that she was compelled to enter into a physical relationship with the revisionist against her will. In the F.I.R., she has mentioned that revisionist made physical relationship with her without her consent. Allegation of physical relationship without the informant's consent is absent in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code. In this statement of hers, she has stated that the incident occurred after she consumed alcohol, but her statement does not reflect that said relationship was established either during her unconsciousness or against her will. She has further stated that she visited the hotel on October 7, 2023, and November 3, 2023, but has not alleged that any physical relationship was established on these dates. However, when her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code, again she has stated that the revisionist entered into a physical relationship with her on October 2, 2023, after she had lost consciousness. She has further stated that relationship between them took place on October 7, 2023, and November 3, 2023, but has not alleged that these relationships were made when she was in an unconscious state or against her will.

13. Before recording any findings against the accused on the allegations that he committed rape on false promise of marriage, it will be relevant to refer observations of Supreme Court in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: "21. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage, a false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent involved was given after fully understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the prosecutor agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of misrepresentation made to her by the accused, or where an accused on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated differently. An accused can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches to a conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives."

14. The above judgement has distinguished between mere breach of promise and not fulfilling one. A person can be accused of making false promises of marriage if he has a malicious motive to deceive the victim. However, in this case, it is an admitted fact that the revisionist has not made a false promise of marriage; instead, the marriage was arranged and fixed by their parents. Moreover, the alleged relationship between the parties occurred after marriage was fixed, but before it was cancelled. It is evident from the statement made by parents of the informant and other witnesses that the revisionist was annoyed after seeing photos of the informant with one Nitesh. Therefore, it cannot be said that the victim was deceived in any manner by the revisionist before they had a physical relationship. Now, the question for consideration remains that whether statements of victim in this particular case is sufficient to establish the charge of rape. As mentioned earlier, the allegation against revisionist in F.I.R. is that he made physical relationship with victim on three occasions in a hotel while she was unconscious. Whereas when her statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code, the victim has simply stated that physical relationship was established between them after consuming drinks. Neither she has alleged that she was unconscious at that time nor it was without her consent. Similarly, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code, she has stated that on October 2, 2023, the revisionist made physical relationship with her while she was unconscious. But she has not alleged that any such incident occurred on the subsequent two dates. The statements of victim are in variance with each other on different occasions. In the F.I.R. and in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code, she alleges that physical relationship was established by the revisionist in state of her unconsciousness, whereas her statement under Section 161 of the Code reflects as if the said relationship was consensual.

15. Apart from the above facts, it is relevant to mention that a compromise was arrived at between the parties on December 19, 2023, as stated by the father of the informant, Shivnarayan Gupta. He has stated before the I.O. that said compromise was arrived at in the presence of the informant, the revisionist, and other witnesses, but fact of illicit relationship was not disclosed by his daughter at that time. Renu Gupta, the mother of the informant, has also corroborated this fact. It is unusual that the alleged act of revisionist was not disclosed by the informant to her parents till the compromise was reached, but was disclosed two months later by lodging the present F.I.R. Similarly, the allegation of administering contraceptive pill by revisionist, which was neither mentioned in F.I.R. nor during the victim's statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code, was levelled first time by the revisionist when her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code.

16. It is settled law that testimony of a rape victim shall be given privacy and if it is trustworthy, it needs no corroboration. But it is also trite law that testimony of a rape victim is not different from the testimony of any other witnesses and it has to be analysed in a similar manner. In this case, the statement of the victim and other witnesses available in the case diary, if read together, do not, prima facie, satisfy the allegations made by the informant.

17. Therefore, discharge application filed by the revisionst before learned Trial Court is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, impugned order dated 25.11.2024 is set aside and this criminal revision stands allowed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Ujjawal UJJAWAL UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad