Ravi Tiwari v. Counsel for

the FIR dated 20.08.2025 in Case Crime No. 1 of 2025, under section 70, 127(2), 77, 351(3), 61(2), 3(5) Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S) 2023, Police Station Anti Human Trafficking Unit, District Nagar (Commissionerate Agra).

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the facts of the case, in nutshell is that the brother-in-law of the petitioner was running a Non Government Organization (NGO), namely Keshava Kaushal Prashikshan Sansthan (earlier known as Matri Chhaya Shishugrah) whose registered office is situated at Guru Kripa Complex, Nadesar, Varanasi and the sister of the petitioner is the Secretary in the aforesaid NGO and the petitioner has no connection with the aforesaid NGO.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner further submitted that in the year of 2014 the respondent no. 4 came in the aforesaid NGO with her brother namely Chandra Shekhar Maurya and asked for some job in the NGO. The respondent no. 4 has been appointed in the aforesaid NGO as Mother on daily basis. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner further submitted that due to some dispute arose between the informant and the NGO the instant FIR was lodged.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner further submitted that earlier also the informant had lodged an FIR against her mother, brother and 2 CRLP No. 23307 of 2025 sisters on 26.08.2019 bearing Case Crime No. 1011 of 2019, under sections 376, 511, 354(B), 323, 392, 325, 328, 120B, 406, 506 IPC. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation in the aforesaid case crime the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of respondent no. 4 under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 11.09.2019 in which she has supported the version of the FIR bearing Case Crime No. 1011 of 2019. It is further submitted that the investigation is still going on in the aforesaid case crime.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner further submitted that the instant FIR lodged by the respondent no. 4 against the petitioner on

20.08.2025 for the offence punishable under section 70, 127(2), 77, 351(3), 61(2), 3(5) Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S) 2023 only for the purpose of false implication of the petitioner. The petitioner has no link with the aforesaid NGO. It is further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 4 i.e. informant is habitual for lodging FIRs only for grabbing the money, therefore, initially she had lodged FIR against her own mother, brother and sisters. It is further submitted that the informant has lodged the instant FIR against the petitioner only to exert pressure upon the brother-in-law who is running the NGO to fulfill her illegal demands. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 4 lodged the FIR against the petitioner to pressurize the entire family members.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the entire story made by the respondent no. 4 is false, fabricated, baseless and without any evidence, therefore, the instant FIR is nothing but, gross misuse of process of law with malafide intention to initiate malicious prosecution against the petitioner, who is totally innocent. It is further submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent, there is no previous criminal history to his credit in any manner.

7. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State vehemently opposed the instant writ petition and submitted that after plain reading of the FIR, the cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner is allegedly involved in offence punishable under section 70 BNS, the respondent no. 4 was subjected to the Gang Rape, whatever arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are matter of 3 CRLP No. 23307 of 2025 investigation, therefore, at this stage the writ court may not take the defence of the petitioner for the purpose of quashing of the FIR. He also referred the relevant part of the instant FIR, dated 20.08.2025, which is quoted hereunder:- "एक िदन डा० सत्य्ऺकाश का लड़का हिरओम ितवारी एनजीओ मे आया जो अकसर एनजीओ मे आता रहता था एक िदन वह अपना मोबाईल मेरे काउं टर पर छोड कर बहार चला गया मैने उसका मोबाईल देखा तो उसके मोबाईल फोन मे बच्चो के अशलील फोटो िदखाई िदए। मैं और आगे शचर् करके देखी तो मेरा नहाते समय का अ्शील फोटो उसके मोबाईल में था यह देख कर मुझे बहुत गुस्सा आ गया तथा मैने उसकी िशकायत हिरओम की माता माला ितवारी से की तो उन्होंने मुझे समझाने की कोिशश की तब मैने कहा िक मैं इसकी िशकायत पुिलस में करूगी तो माला ितवारी ने यह बात डा0 सत्य ्ऺकाश को बतायी तो डा० सत्य ्ऺकाश भी आ गये उन्होने हमे बहुत समझाया िक तुम हमारी बेटी जैसी हो हमारे बेटे गलती है मैं तुम्हारी शाटी अपने बेटे से करा दूँगा। उसी िदन एनजीओ मे डा० सत्य ्ऺकाश ितवारी उनकी पत्नी माला ितवारी व माला ितवारी का भाई रिव ितवारी की मौजूदगी मे हिरओम ितवारी ने मुझसे शादी िकया। वहा एनजीओ के अन्य लोग भी मौजुद थे। सत्य ्ऺकाश ने यह शादी इसिलए करवायी थी िक यह बात पुिलस मे ना जाए व लोगो मे बदनामी न हो इस बात की मुझे जानकारी तब हुई जब मैने कहा िक जब शादी कर िलए हो तो मुझे अपने घर लेके चलो तो उन्होने कहा िक नहीं तुम यही रहोगी।"

8. Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned AGA further submitted that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner failed to make out any case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, [1992 SCC (Cri) 426] for quashing of the instant FIR and prayed that the instant writ petition may be dismissed as devoid of merit.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record as well as the averments made by the learned counsel for the parties.

10. After plain reading of the FIR and also taking into consideration of the aforesaid referred paragraph of the instant FIR by the learned AGA, submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. We 4 CRLP No. 23307 of 2025 also agree with the arguments advanced by the learned AGA that whatever the arguments taken by the petitioner are arguments of defence, therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration for purpose of quashing the FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the writ jurisdiction. We are also taking into consideration of the law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as several other High Courts that in the case of serious offence like 302, 376 D IPC or others, the Writ Court may only invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction in the rarest of the rare cases where after reading of the FIR no prima facie cognizable offences are made out or the averments of the FIR do not support the ingredients of the sections which has been invoked by the police or the investigating agencies while lodging the FIR.

11. Taking into consideration the aforesaid observations, we do not find any merit in the instant petition.

12. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) October 15, 2025 Arti ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

the FIR dated 20.08.2025 in Case Crime No. 1 of 2025, under section 70, 127(2), 77, 351(3), 61(2), 3(5) Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S) 2023, Police Station Anti Human Trafficking Unit, District Nagar (Commissionerate Agra).

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the facts of the case, in nutshell is that the brother-in-law of the petitioner was running a Non Government Organization (NGO), namely Keshava Kaushal Prashikshan Sansthan (earlier known as Matri Chhaya Shishugrah) whose registered office is situated at Guru Kripa Complex, Nadesar, Varanasi and the sister of the petitioner is the Secretary in the aforesaid NGO and the petitioner has no connection with the aforesaid NGO.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner further submitted that in the year of 2014 the respondent no. 4 came in the aforesaid NGO with her brother namely Chandra Shekhar Maurya and asked for some job in the NGO. The respondent no. 4 has been appointed in the aforesaid NGO as Mother on daily basis. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner further submitted that due to some dispute arose between the informant and the NGO the instant FIR was lodged.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner further submitted that earlier also the informant had lodged an FIR against her mother, brother and 2 CRLP No. 23307 of 2025 sisters on 26.08.2019 bearing Case Crime No. 1011 of 2019, under sections 376, 511, 354(B), 323, 392, 325, 328, 120B, 406, 506 IPC. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation in the aforesaid case crime the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of respondent no. 4 under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 11.09.2019 in which she has supported the version of the FIR bearing Case Crime No. 1011 of 2019. It is further submitted that the investigation is still going on in the aforesaid case crime.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner further submitted that the instant FIR lodged by the respondent no. 4 against the petitioner on

20.08.2025 for the offence punishable under section 70, 127(2), 77, 351(3), 61(2), 3(5) Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S) 2023 only for the purpose of false implication of the petitioner. The petitioner has no link with the aforesaid NGO. It is further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 4 i.e. informant is habitual for lodging FIRs only for grabbing the money, therefore, initially she had lodged FIR against her own mother, brother and sisters. It is further submitted that the informant has lodged the instant FIR against the petitioner only to exert pressure upon the brother-in-law who is running the NGO to fulfill her illegal demands. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 4 lodged the FIR against the petitioner to pressurize the entire family members.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the entire story made by the respondent no. 4 is false, fabricated, baseless and without any evidence, therefore, the instant FIR is nothing but, gross misuse of process of law with malafide intention to initiate malicious prosecution against the petitioner, who is totally innocent. It is further submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent, there is no previous criminal history to his credit in any manner.

7. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State vehemently opposed the instant writ petition and submitted that after plain reading of the FIR, the cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner is allegedly involved in offence punishable under section 70 BNS, the respondent no. 4 was subjected to the Gang Rape, whatever arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are matter of 3 CRLP No. 23307 of 2025 investigation, therefore, at this stage the writ court may not take the defence of the petitioner for the purpose of quashing of the FIR. He also referred the relevant part of the instant FIR, dated 20.08.2025, which is quoted hereunder:- "एक िदन डा० सत्य्ऺकाश का लड़का हिरओम ितवारी एनजीओ मे आया जो अकसर एनजीओ मे आता रहता था एक िदन वह अपना मोबाईल मेरे काउं टर पर छोड कर बहार चला गया मैने उसका मोबाईल देखा तो उसके मोबाईल फोन मे बच्चो के अशलील फोटो िदखाई िदए। मैं और आगे शचर् करके देखी तो मेरा नहाते समय का अ्शील फोटो उसके मोबाईल में था यह देख कर मुझे बहुत गुस्सा आ गया तथा मैने उसकी िशकायत हिरओम की माता माला ितवारी से की तो उन्होंने मुझे समझाने की कोिशश की तब मैने कहा िक मैं इसकी िशकायत पुिलस में करूगी तो माला ितवारी ने यह बात डा0 सत्य ्ऺकाश को बतायी तो डा० सत्य ्ऺकाश भी आ गये उन्होने हमे बहुत समझाया िक तुम हमारी बेटी जैसी हो हमारे बेटे गलती है मैं तुम्हारी शाटी अपने बेटे से करा दूँगा। उसी िदन एनजीओ मे डा० सत्य ्ऺकाश ितवारी उनकी पत्नी माला ितवारी व माला ितवारी का भाई रिव ितवारी की मौजूदगी मे हिरओम ितवारी ने मुझसे शादी िकया। वहा एनजीओ के अन्य लोग भी मौजुद थे। सत्य ्ऺकाश ने यह शादी इसिलए करवायी थी िक यह बात पुिलस मे ना जाए व लोगो मे बदनामी न हो इस बात की मुझे जानकारी तब हुई जब मैने कहा िक जब शादी कर िलए हो तो मुझे अपने घर लेके चलो तो उन्होने कहा िक नहीं तुम यही रहोगी।"

8. Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned AGA further submitted that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner failed to make out any case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, [1992 SCC (Cri) 426] for quashing of the instant FIR and prayed that the instant writ petition may be dismissed as devoid of merit.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record as well as the averments made by the learned counsel for the parties.

10. After plain reading of the FIR and also taking into consideration of the aforesaid referred paragraph of the instant FIR by the learned AGA, submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. We 4 CRLP No. 23307 of 2025 also agree with the arguments advanced by the learned AGA that whatever the arguments taken by the petitioner are arguments of defence, therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration for purpose of quashing the FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the writ jurisdiction. We are also taking into consideration of the law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as several other High Courts that in the case of serious offence like 302, 376 D IPC or others, the Writ Court may only invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction in the rarest of the rare cases where after reading of the FIR no prima facie cognizable offences are made out or the averments of the FIR do not support the ingredients of the sections which has been invoked by the police or the investigating agencies while lodging the FIR.

11. Taking into consideration the aforesaid observations, we do not find any merit in the instant petition.

12. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) October 15, 2025 Arti ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad