Udaiveer v. Counsel for

impugned First Information Report dated 28.06.2025, giving rise to Case Crime No. 68 of 2025, under Section 61(2), 70(2), 127(4), 318(3), 351(3), 352 B.N.S. and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offices Act, 2012, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Aligarh and commanding the respondents not to arrest petitioner in the aforesaid case crime.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is submitted that as per the allegation of the FIR the petitioner has made physical relationship with the prosecutrix/respondent no. 3 on the pretext of false marriage promises. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive on the part of the respondent no. 3. Also, there is delay in lodging the instant FIR.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner vehemently submitted that the informant i.e. respondent no. 3 is habitual to lodging false FIRs against the persons for taking money from the alleged accused. It is also submitted that in this regard, several news reports have been published in the daily news paper with the title of "Luteri Dulhan". Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix only to grab money from the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the instant criminal proceeding has been initiated by the respondent no. 3 with malafide 2 CRLP No. 23861 of 2025 intention and, therefore, it is a malicious prosecution against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a respectable person of society with clean antecedents and there is no previous criminal history against the petitioner and the instant FIR has been lodged against him with the intention to damage the reputation of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation of rape has been made by the respondent no. 3 against six persons and out of six, five persons have already been granted interim protection by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the order of granting interim protection by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, has been appended as Annexure No. 6 to the present petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that since the entire criminal proceeding is initiated by the respondent no. 3 due to malafide intention and ulterior motive, therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that petitioner is the main person who has given the false promises to the respondent no. 3. It is submitted that the prosecutrix has supported the averments made in the FIR in the statement given under section 183 of BNSS. It is submitted that as per the statement given under section 183 BNSS she stated that the petitioner is the only person who has committed rape with her and she has not made any allegation regarding rape on the other co-accused persons who have already been granted interim protection by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the arguments. For ready reference, the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 183 BNSS is reproduced below:- "बयान अवलोकन धारा 183 बयान पीिडता / वािदया बयान अन्तगर्त धारा 183 61 बीएनएस मु0अ0स धारा (2)/70(2)/127(4)/318(3)/351(3)/352 बीएनएस व 5/6 पक्सो एक्ट से सम्बिन्धत वािदया / पीिडता कु ० रािधका पुत्री श्री िवजेन्द्र िसह िन० तारापुर थाना गौण्डा िज० अलीगढ हाल िन० शािन्त िवहार मैलरोज वाईपास रोड थाना रोरावर जनपद अलीगढ का मैं िववेचक पहचानती हूँ फोटो प्रमािणत करती हूँ। मेरा नाम रािधका है। मैं 18 वषर् की हूँ। मैंने कक्षा 8 तक पढ़ाई की है। उदयवीर 1/4/2025 से मेरे घर आना जाना था। उदयवीर , पप्पू, सीमा, धमर्वीर सब आते थे घर। एक बार उदयवीर का शादी का िरश्ता सीमा, पप्पू, मेरे घर लेकर आये थे। मैंने मना कर िदया 3 CRLP No. 23861 of 2025 था क्योिक उदयवीर 40 साल का है। 18/4/25 को मैं अके ली वृदावन गई सीमा, पप्पू, धमर्वीर, उदयवीर के साथ गये थे। िफर मिन्दर ना ले जाकर सभी मुझे अपने घर ले गये। िफर वहां पर उदयवीर ने मेरे साथ जबरदस्ती मेरा बलात्कार िकया। मुझे धमकी दी जाने से मारने की यदी मैने िकसी को बताया। छत पर एक कमरा था जहां उदयवीर ने मेरा बलात्कार िकया और वाकी तीनो कमरे के बाहर बैठे थे। ज्योित, धमर्वीर की बेटी ने मुझे धमकी दी मुझे और मेरे पिरवार को झूठे मुकदमें में फं साने को। उदयवीर मुझे बटू को। मुझे गलत दवाईयां दी। 30/04/25 को िपता आये बुलाते तो मैने मना कर ंक लगा कर जो बोलने को कहता वही में बोलती अपने मां बाप िदया। उदयवीर ने खाली कागज पर हस्ताक्षर करा िलये। खाना नहीं दे रहे थे। िफर एक िदन पप्पू का फोन हाथ लग गया। पापा को फोन िकया, पुिलस लाने को कहा। िफर मुझे ले गये। सारी बात िफर मां को बताया। जब पापा ने पता िकया तो िनकल या िक उदयवीर शादी शुदा है दो बच्चे है merchant Navy मे होनो बताया वो भी गलत िनकला। अब अल्ट्रासाउन्ट कराया तो पता चला की ढाई महीने पैट से हूँ पप्पू, धमर्वीर ने मेरे साथ कई बार छेडखानी की है। मुझे मारते पीटते थे मुझे और कु छ नहीं कहना। बयान सुनकर तस्दीक िकया sd िहन्दी पठनीय रािधका पीिडता के बोलने पर मेरे द्वारा बयान िलखा गया sd अग्रेजी अपठनीय 5/7/25"

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State submitted that after conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet has already been filed against the co-accused persons, namely Bijendra Singh and Bala Devi. It is also submitted that the petitioner is absconding and, therefore, the investigation is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been filed against him. It is further submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, after plain reading of FIR and statement given by the prosecutrix under section 183 BNSS, serious cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, therefore, this is not a case where this Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for allowing the prayer as made in the instant petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State, perused the contents made in the FIR, statement given by the prosecutrix under section 183 BNSS, other documents available on record, the fact that the other co-accused namely Pappu, Seema, Jyoti, Devendri and Dharamveer have already been exonerated by the investigating agency and also the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed against the Bijendra Singh and Bala Devi for the offence under section 61(2), 64(1), 308(7), 318(4) BNS and Section 16/17 POCSO Act as well as the averments made by the learned counsel for the 4 CRLP No. 23861 of 2025 parties.

8. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the averments made in the FIR as well as statement of prosecutrix given under section 183 BNSS, we are of the view that serious cognizable offence is made out against petitioner and, in particular, considering the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, [1992 SCC (Cri) 426], we do not find any ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction as prayed by the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) October 27, 2025 Arti

impugned First Information Report dated 28.06.2025, giving rise to Case Crime No. 68 of 2025, under Section 61(2), 70(2), 127(4), 318(3), 351(3), 352 B.N.S. and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offices Act, 2012, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Aligarh and commanding the respondents not to arrest petitioner in the aforesaid case crime.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is submitted that as per the allegation of the FIR the petitioner has made physical relationship with the prosecutrix/respondent no. 3 on the pretext of false marriage promises. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive on the part of the respondent no. 3. Also, there is delay in lodging the instant FIR.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner vehemently submitted that the informant i.e. respondent no. 3 is habitual to lodging false FIRs against the persons for taking money from the alleged accused. It is also submitted that in this regard, several news reports have been published in the daily news paper with the title of "Luteri Dulhan". Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix only to grab money from the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the instant criminal proceeding has been initiated by the respondent no. 3 with malafide 2 CRLP No. 23861 of 2025 intention and, therefore, it is a malicious prosecution against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a respectable person of society with clean antecedents and there is no previous criminal history against the petitioner and the instant FIR has been lodged against him with the intention to damage the reputation of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation of rape has been made by the respondent no. 3 against six persons and out of six, five persons have already been granted interim protection by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the order of granting interim protection by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, has been appended as Annexure No. 6 to the present petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that since the entire criminal proceeding is initiated by the respondent no. 3 due to malafide intention and ulterior motive, therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that petitioner is the main person who has given the false promises to the respondent no. 3. It is submitted that the prosecutrix has supported the averments made in the FIR in the statement given under section 183 of BNSS. It is submitted that as per the statement given under section 183 BNSS she stated that the petitioner is the only person who has committed rape with her and she has not made any allegation regarding rape on the other co-accused persons who have already been granted interim protection by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the arguments. For ready reference, the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 183 BNSS is reproduced below:- "बयान अवलोकन धारा 183 बयान पीिडता / वािदया बयान अन्तगर्त धारा 183 61 बीएनएस मु0अ0स धारा (2)/70(2)/127(4)/318(3)/351(3)/352 बीएनएस व 5/6 पक्सो एक्ट से सम्बिन्धत वािदया / पीिडता कु ० रािधका पुत्री श्री िवजेन्द्र िसह िन० तारापुर थाना गौण्डा िज० अलीगढ हाल िन० शािन्त िवहार मैलरोज वाईपास रोड थाना रोरावर जनपद अलीगढ का मैं िववेचक पहचानती हूँ फोटो प्रमािणत करती हूँ। मेरा नाम रािधका है। मैं 18 वषर् की हूँ। मैंने कक्षा 8 तक पढ़ाई की है। उदयवीर 1/4/2025 से मेरे घर आना जाना था। उदयवीर , पप्पू, सीमा, धमर्वीर सब आते थे घर। एक बार उदयवीर का शादी का िरश्ता सीमा, पप्पू, मेरे घर लेकर आये थे। मैंने मना कर िदया 3 CRLP No. 23861 of 2025 था क्योिक उदयवीर 40 साल का है। 18/4/25 को मैं अके ली वृदावन गई सीमा, पप्पू, धमर्वीर, उदयवीर के साथ गये थे। िफर मिन्दर ना ले जाकर सभी मुझे अपने घर ले गये। िफर वहां पर उदयवीर ने मेरे साथ जबरदस्ती मेरा बलात्कार िकया। मुझे धमकी दी जाने से मारने की यदी मैने िकसी को बताया। छत पर एक कमरा था जहां उदयवीर ने मेरा बलात्कार िकया और वाकी तीनो कमरे के बाहर बैठे थे। ज्योित, धमर्वीर की बेटी ने मुझे धमकी दी मुझे और मेरे पिरवार को झूठे मुकदमें में फं साने को। उदयवीर मुझे बटू को। मुझे गलत दवाईयां दी। 30/04/25 को िपता आये बुलाते तो मैने मना कर ंक लगा कर जो बोलने को कहता वही में बोलती अपने मां बाप िदया। उदयवीर ने खाली कागज पर हस्ताक्षर करा िलये। खाना नहीं दे रहे थे। िफर एक िदन पप्पू का फोन हाथ लग गया। पापा को फोन िकया, पुिलस लाने को कहा। िफर मुझे ले गये। सारी बात िफर मां को बताया। जब पापा ने पता िकया तो िनकल या िक उदयवीर शादी शुदा है दो बच्चे है merchant Navy मे होनो बताया वो भी गलत िनकला। अब अल्ट्रासाउन्ट कराया तो पता चला की ढाई महीने पैट से हूँ पप्पू, धमर्वीर ने मेरे साथ कई बार छेडखानी की है। मुझे मारते पीटते थे मुझे और कु छ नहीं कहना। बयान सुनकर तस्दीक िकया sd िहन्दी पठनीय रािधका पीिडता के बोलने पर मेरे द्वारा बयान िलखा गया sd अग्रेजी अपठनीय 5/7/25"

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State submitted that after conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet has already been filed against the co-accused persons, namely Bijendra Singh and Bala Devi. It is also submitted that the petitioner is absconding and, therefore, the investigation is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been filed against him. It is further submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, after plain reading of FIR and statement given by the prosecutrix under section 183 BNSS, serious cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, therefore, this is not a case where this Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for allowing the prayer as made in the instant petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State, perused the contents made in the FIR, statement given by the prosecutrix under section 183 BNSS, other documents available on record, the fact that the other co-accused namely Pappu, Seema, Jyoti, Devendri and Dharamveer have already been exonerated by the investigating agency and also the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed against the Bijendra Singh and Bala Devi for the offence under section 61(2), 64(1), 308(7), 318(4) BNS and Section 16/17 POCSO Act as well as the averments made by the learned counsel for the 4 CRLP No. 23861 of 2025 parties.

8. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the averments made in the FIR as well as statement of prosecutrix given under section 183 BNSS, we are of the view that serious cognizable offence is made out against petitioner and, in particular, considering the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, [1992 SCC (Cri) 426], we do not find any ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction as prayed by the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) October 27, 2025 Arti