Palbachan Singh Sandhu … v. State of U.P. Thru. A.c.s./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and another

Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. as well as complainant in-person.

2. The present application is filed with the prayer to quash the Charge Sheet dated 20.5.2025, arisen out of the Case Crime No.0182 of 2025, under Section 69 and 318(4) of B.N.S., Police Station - Kotwali, District - Unnao, cognizance order dated

24.6.2025 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Unnao as well as Bailable Warrant dated 21.8.2025. 2 NA528 No. - 1159 of 2025

3. As per the prosecution case, F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged with the allegation that the complainant, who is a sufi singer as well as a social worker is a resident of Unnao and in February, 2022, she went to Mohali, Sector - 85, Punjab for promotion of sufi music, where applicant met her and during the conversation, applicant portrayed himself as an agent/mediator providing her residential accommodation. Thereafter, they came close to each other. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the applicant tried to trap the complainant and proposed for marriage in March, 2022, for the purpose of which, applicant visited thrice at house of the complainant at Shuklaganj, Unnao in between March, 2022 to June, 2023 and assured her that he will divorce his wife and solemnize marriage with her. It is also alleged therein that on his proposal, consent was given by her mother as well as brother and a gold ring was also given to the applicant by them as blessings. In May, 2022, applicant was sacked from service, after which, till June, 2023, complainant provided him Rs.23,88,000/-. Thereafter, on the advice of the applicant, she went to Mumbai alongwith her daughter and took a rented accommodation of 2 BHK, but after some time, applicant's behavior was changed and he refused to divorce his wife for solemnizing marriage with complainant and her phone number was also blocked in October, 2023. Thereafter, she went to Mohali at the house of applicant, but she was not allowed to enter into 3 NA528 No. - 1159 of 2025 his house and though on several times, she tried to contact the applicant on phone, he did not answer to the same. Thereafter, due to social pressure, he returned Rs.6,45,000/- upto July, 2024 but he refused to return the rest of the amount which was given to him in cash. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the investigation was started and the statement of the complainant was recorded under Sections 180 as well as 183 B.N.S.S., in which, she stated that she was aged about 43 years. She was married and a daughter was also born but due to some dispute, she took divorce in the year 2011. she further stated that she is a social worker as well as sufi singer and for the promotion of Sufi Music, she went to Mohali, Punjab alongwith her daughter, where she met with the applicant who was a civil engineer working in Chandigarh. She also stated that applicant facilitated her for getting a rented accommodation in Mohali. She further stated that the applicant was also married, having 14 years old son. On

18.3.2022, the applicant visited the house of the complainant at Shuklaganj, Unnao and informed that he will take divorce from his wife if she is ready to marry with him. He also informed that he is living separately from his wife and son. But later on, the complainant realized that applicant, in a strategical manner, cheated her by taking her money as well as enjoying her relationship. In her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, 4 NA528 No. - 1159 of 2025 she stated that she was physically abused by the applicant and also cheated by taking Rs.23,88,000/- from her.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that complainant of the present case is a prudent and mature lady aged about 45 years. She had taken divorce with her husband in the year 2017 and living with her 17 years old daughter. He further submitted that complainant was making relationship with applicant knowing the fact that he is a married person, and therefore, the conduct of the complainant itself shows that she was voluntarily making relations with the applicant. Submission of

learned counsel for the applicant is that when complainant started blackmailing the applicant, he blocked her number. He also submitted that F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by the complainant only with the intention to harass and blackmail the applicant and considering the entire evidences collected by the Investigating Officer, no offence can be said to be made out against the applicant.

5. Relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court Apex Court in the case of Manish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.15882 of 2024, Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.11642 of 2019 & Veerendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.48783 of 2024 learned counsel for the applicant submitted that ingredients of Section 69 and 318(6) BNS are 5 NA528 No. - 1159 of 2025 completely missing and therefore, entire proceedings of the case may be set aside.

6. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that charge sheet has already been submitted on the basis of evidences collected by the Investigating Officer and all these evidences can be examined by the learned trial court at appropriate stage and present application is liable to be dismissed.

7. Complainant who was present before this Court in-person submitted that at the time of incident, she was aged about 43 years and a divorcee living with her 17 years old daughter. She also stated that she is a Sufi Singer and in February, 2022 applicant came in contact with her when she was in Mohali, Punjab in relation to promote sufi music. Thereafter, after knowing that she is a divorcee lady, the applicant proposed her for marriage and informed that he will take divorce with his wife. Thereafter, applicant, who was a civil engineer was sacked from service, on which, the complainant had given him moral support as well as financial support by giving him Rs.23,88,000/- in cash. She also stated that she was shifted to Mumbai on the advice of the applicant in July, 2023 but, thereafter, applicant stopped talking with her and when she demanded her money back, only Rs.6,45,000/- was given online and rest amount of Rs.17,43,000/- was not given to her. She further stated that applicant also made 6 NA528 No. - 1159 of 2025 physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage but thereafter, he refused to solemnize marriage with her and prima facie offence is made out against the applicant, the application is liable to be dismissed.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the application as well as case diary, it is evident that there is no evidence for making payment of Rs.23,88,000/- to the applicant in cash by the complainant. It is admitted by the complainant that Rs.6,45, 000/- was returned by the applicant to the complainant online. She also admitted that she was shifted to Mumbai and took a residential accommodation on rent with the help of the applicant. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant informed the complainant that he is a married person living separate from his wife and he will take divorce from his wife and marry with the complainant. This is very surprising that complainant, who is a prudent lady, made physical relations with the applicant knowing that he is a married person. Moreover, she herself admitted that she is a sufi singer and social worker, therefore, it cannot be said that she is adolescent. The judgments relied by the applicant are fully applicable in the present case. Para no.16 of the judgment relied by the 7 NA528 No. - 1159 of 2025 learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra) reads as under :- "It is by now well settled that summoning any person on the basis of a frivolous or vexatious complaint is something very serious. This would tranish the image of the person against whom false, frivolous and vexatious allegations are levelled."

9. After examining the entire material as well as judgment placed before this Court, this Court is of the view that complainant fails to give evidence in relation to the payment of Rs.23,88,000/- in cash. Further, the narration of the complainant that applicant, who is a married person made physical relation with her on the pretext of marriage after giving divorce to his wife is highly hypothetical.

10. In view of the discussions made herinabove, the present application is allowed and the Charge Sheet dated 20.5.2025, arisen out of the Case Crime No.0182 of 2025, under Section 69 and 318(4) of B.N.S., Police Station - Kotwali, District - Unnao, cognizance order dated 24.6.2025 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Unnao as well as Bailable Warrant dated 21.8.2025 are hereby quashed. (Rajeev Singh,J.) December, 19, 2025 Gaurav GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

learned counsel for the applicant is that when complainant started blackmailing the applicant, he blocked her number. He also submitted that F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by the complainant only with the intention to harass and blackmail the applicant and considering the entire evidences collected by the Investigating Officer, no offence can be said to be made out against the applicant.

5. Relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court Apex Court in the case of Manish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.15882 of 2024, Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.11642 of 2019 & Veerendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.48783 of 2024 learned counsel for the applicant submitted that ingredients of Section 69 and 318(6) BNS are 5 NA528 No. - 1159 of 2025 completely missing and therefore, entire proceedings of the case may be set aside.

6. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that charge sheet has already been submitted on the basis of evidences collected by the Investigating Officer and all these evidences can be examined by the learned trial court at appropriate stage and present application is liable to be dismissed.

7. Complainant who was present before this Court in-person submitted that at the time of incident, she was aged about 43 years and a divorcee living with her 17 years old daughter. She also stated that she is a Sufi Singer and in February, 2022 applicant came in contact with her when she was in Mohali, Punjab in relation to promote sufi music. Thereafter, after knowing that she is a divorcee lady, the applicant proposed her for marriage and informed that he will take divorce with his wife. Thereafter, applicant, who was a civil engineer was sacked from service, on which, the complainant had given him moral support as well as financial support by giving him Rs.23,88,000/- in cash. She also stated that she was shifted to Mumbai on the advice of the applicant in July, 2023 but, thereafter, applicant stopped talking with her and when she demanded her money back, only Rs.6,45,000/- was given online and rest amount of Rs.17,43,000/- was not given to her. She further stated that applicant also made 6 NA528 No. - 1159 of 2025 physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage but thereafter, he refused to solemnize marriage with her and prima facie offence is made out against the applicant, the application is liable to be dismissed.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the application as well as case diary, it is evident that there is no evidence for making payment of Rs.23,88,000/- to the applicant in cash by the complainant. It is admitted by the complainant that Rs.6,45, 000/- was returned by the applicant to the complainant online. She also admitted that she was shifted to Mumbai and took a residential accommodation on rent with the help of the applicant. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant informed the complainant that he is a married person living separate from his wife and he will take divorce from his wife and marry with the complainant. This is very surprising that complainant, who is a prudent lady, made physical relations with the applicant knowing that he is a married person. Moreover, she herself admitted that she is a sufi singer and social worker, therefore, it cannot be said that she is adolescent. The judgments relied by the applicant are fully applicable in the present case. Para no.16 of the judgment relied by the 7 NA528 No. - 1159 of 2025 learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra) reads as under :- "It is by now well settled that summoning any person on the basis of a frivolous or vexatious complaint is something very serious. This would tranish the image of the person against whom false, frivolous and vexatious allegations are levelled."

9. After examining the entire material as well as judgment placed before this Court, this Court is of the view that complainant fails to give evidence in relation to the payment of Rs.23,88,000/- in cash. Further, the narration of the complainant that applicant, who is a married person made physical relation with her on the pretext of marriage after giving divorce to his wife is highly hypothetical.

10. In view of the discussions made herinabove, the present application is allowed and the Charge Sheet dated 20.5.2025, arisen out of the Case Crime No.0182 of 2025, under Section 69 and 318(4) of B.N.S., Police Station - Kotwali, District - Unnao, cognizance order dated 24.6.2025 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Unnao as well as Bailable Warrant dated 21.8.2025 are hereby quashed. (Rajeev Singh,J.) December, 19, 2025 Gaurav GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench