Bharat Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

1. Heard Sri Ram Veer Yadav, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Yadava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Girijesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Salik Ram Tiwari, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant/ opposite party No.4, the same is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the supplementary affidavit, today in the Court, the same is taken on record.

3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(I) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the First Information Report dated 30.04.2025 lodged by the complainant/ opposite party No.4 at Police Station-Jethwara, District-Pratapgarh against the petitioner at F.I.R. No.89 of 2025, under Sections 376-D, 342, 506 & 365 I.P.C., as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, upto the extent that it relates to the petitioner. (II) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 not to adopt coercive measure against the petitioner in connection with First Information Report dated 30.04.2025 complainant/ opposite party No.4 at Police Station-Jethwara, District-Pratapgarh against the petitioner at F.I.R. No.89 of 2025, under Sections 376-D, 342, 506 & 365 I.P.C.." lodged by

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as 2 CRLP No. 8554 of 2025 alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.). He has further submitted that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged pursuant to the application being filed under Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S. wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 13.06.2024 whereas the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on

30.04.2025 for the alleged incident. The aforesaid application under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. has been filed on 03.12.2024. In the F.I.R., the allegation of gang-rape has been attributed to all the accused persons. As per the prosecution story, the present petitioner has eloped the informant and took her to Ahmadabad on 13.06.2024. The incident in question was of kidnapping by the present petitioner with the help of other two co-accused persons, namely, Mahendra Yadav and Atul Yadav. All the accused persons have regularly committed rape with her at Ahmadabad. After committing rape, all the accused persons had threatened her for dire consequences if she intimates about this incident to any one. The aforesaid facts have been indicated in the impugned F.I.R.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.3 of the writ petition, which is a typed copy of the police report dated 14.12.2024, wherein the Investigating Officer has stated that after recovering the prosecutrix her statement was recorded and the same has been video-graphed wherein she has stated that the accused persons have not committed any misread with her.

6. In the supplementary affidavit, one report dated 09.12.2024 has been submitted by the Circle Officer, Sadar, Pratapgarh wherein the reference of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the police has been given and the video-graphed of the statement has also been taken into account. In the aforesaid report, it has been indicated by the Circle Officer that no incriminating material has been recovered til the report dated 09.12.2024 submitted to the Superintendent of Police, District-Pratapgarh.

7. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that this is a case of false implication inasmuch as the prosecutrix/ informant has gone with the present petitioner with her consent and free will and later on the allegation of gang-rape has been levelled against the present petitioner and other co-accused persons.

8. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel 3 CRLP No. 8554 of 2025 appearing for the opposite party No.4/ informant have vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate has produced the instructions letter dated 09.09.2025 provided by the Sub-Inspector, Police Station- Jethwara, District-Pratapgarh addressing learned Government Advocate, High Court, Lucknow. The same is taken on record.

10. In the aforesaid instructions, it has been indicated in para-8 that after collecting incriminating material and evidences the charge-sheet against the co-accused Mahendra Yadav s/o Sri Bhagauti Prasad Yadav has been filed before the court concerned under Sections 376-D, 342, 506 & 365 I.P.C. bearing Charge-Sheet No. 102 of 2025 dated 23.06.2025. In para-9 of the aforesaid instructions, it has been indicated that the investigation against the petitioner and one co-accused Atul Yadav is still pending consideration in the same Sections i.e. 376-D, 342, 506 & 365 I.P.C. Further, 24 Parchas have been completed so far.

11. Sri Girijesh Kumar Dwivedi has shown a copy of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. which has been recorded on 12.05.2025. In the aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix, she has categorically levelled specific allegation against all the accused persons for committing gang-rape and committing other offences under which the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged.

12. Sri Dwivedi has submitted that earlier report of the police (Annexure No.3 of the writ petition) is dated 14.12.2024 and one report submitted by the Circle Officer before the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh is also dated 09.12.2024 and by that time the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 B.N.S.S. was not recorded before the Magistrate as the same has been recorded on 12.05.2025. After recording the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 B.N.S.S. on 12.05.2025, the allegations of F.I.R. are being corroborated prima-facie. There is no variation in the prosecution story so narrated in the impugned F.I.R. and in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. before the Magistrate. Therefore, as per Sri Dwivedi, the earlier police report may not be absolved the petitioner from the allegations so levelled against him and other accused persons in the impugned F.I.R.

13. Sri Girijesh Kumar Dwivedi has also drawn attention of this Court 4 CRLP No. 8554 of 2025 towards para-3 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, wherein the reference of one writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.4589 of 2025 (CRLP); Mahendra Yadav and others vs. State of U.P. & others, has been given and that writ petition has already been dismissed being withdrawn on 28.05.2025, but the present petitioner is saying that he was not aware about that writ petition. He has stated that the aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the petitioner may not be accepted inasmuch as if any writ petition was filed by the petitioner or any other accused person, he must has signed the Vakalatnama and the information must have been given to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

14. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as police report and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. on

12.05.2025, we are not convinced from the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, rather, the allegations of the impugned F.I.R. are cognizable in nature. Therefore, this writ petition is misconceived, deserves to be dismissed.

15. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) September22,2025 Suresh/ SURESH CHANDRA SURESH CHANDRA SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Ram Veer Yadav, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Yadava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Girijesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Salik Ram Tiwari, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant/ opposite party No.4, the same is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the supplementary affidavit, today in the Court, the same is taken on record.

3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(I) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the First Information Report dated 30.04.2025 lodged by the complainant/ opposite party No.4 at Police Station-Jethwara, District-Pratapgarh against the petitioner at F.I.R. No.89 of 2025, under Sections 376-D, 342, 506 & 365 I.P.C., as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, upto the extent that it relates to the petitioner. (II) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 not to adopt coercive measure against the petitioner in connection with First Information Report dated 30.04.2025 complainant/ opposite party No.4 at Police Station-Jethwara, District-Pratapgarh against the petitioner at F.I.R. No.89 of 2025, under Sections 376-D, 342, 506 & 365 I.P.C.." lodged by

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as 2 CRLP No. 8554 of 2025 alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.). He has further submitted that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged pursuant to the application being filed under Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S. wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 13.06.2024 whereas the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on

30.04.2025 for the alleged incident. The aforesaid application under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. has been filed on 03.12.2024. In the F.I.R., the allegation of gang-rape has been attributed to all the accused persons. As per the prosecution story, the present petitioner has eloped the informant and took her to Ahmadabad on 13.06.2024. The incident in question was of kidnapping by the present petitioner with the help of other two co-accused persons, namely, Mahendra Yadav and Atul Yadav. All the accused persons have regularly committed rape with her at Ahmadabad. After committing rape, all the accused persons had threatened her for dire consequences if she intimates about this incident to any one. The aforesaid facts have been indicated in the impugned F.I.R.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.3 of the writ petition, which is a typed copy of the police report dated 14.12.2024, wherein the Investigating Officer has stated that after recovering the prosecutrix her statement was recorded and the same has been video-graphed wherein she has stated that the accused persons have not committed any misread with her.

6. In the supplementary affidavit, one report dated 09.12.2024 has been submitted by the Circle Officer, Sadar, Pratapgarh wherein the reference of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the police has been given and the video-graphed of the statement has also been taken into account. In the aforesaid report, it has been indicated by the Circle Officer that no incriminating material has been recovered til the report dated 09.12.2024 submitted to the Superintendent of Police, District-Pratapgarh.

7. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that this is a case of false implication inasmuch as the prosecutrix/ informant has gone with the present petitioner with her consent and free will and later on the allegation of gang-rape has been levelled against the present petitioner and other co-accused persons.

8. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel 3 CRLP No. 8554 of 2025 appearing for the opposite party No.4/ informant have vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate has produced the instructions letter dated 09.09.2025 provided by the Sub-Inspector, Police Station- Jethwara, District-Pratapgarh addressing learned Government Advocate, High Court, Lucknow. The same is taken on record.

10. In the aforesaid instructions, it has been indicated in para-8 that after collecting incriminating material and evidences the charge-sheet against the co-accused Mahendra Yadav s/o Sri Bhagauti Prasad Yadav has been filed before the court concerned under Sections 376-D, 342, 506 & 365 I.P.C. bearing Charge-Sheet No. 102 of 2025 dated 23.06.2025. In para-9 of the aforesaid instructions, it has been indicated that the investigation against the petitioner and one co-accused Atul Yadav is still pending consideration in the same Sections i.e. 376-D, 342, 506 & 365 I.P.C. Further, 24 Parchas have been completed so far.

11. Sri Girijesh Kumar Dwivedi has shown a copy of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. which has been recorded on 12.05.2025. In the aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix, she has categorically levelled specific allegation against all the accused persons for committing gang-rape and committing other offences under which the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged.

12. Sri Dwivedi has submitted that earlier report of the police (Annexure No.3 of the writ petition) is dated 14.12.2024 and one report submitted by the Circle Officer before the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh is also dated 09.12.2024 and by that time the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 B.N.S.S. was not recorded before the Magistrate as the same has been recorded on 12.05.2025. After recording the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 B.N.S.S. on 12.05.2025, the allegations of F.I.R. are being corroborated prima-facie. There is no variation in the prosecution story so narrated in the impugned F.I.R. and in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. before the Magistrate. Therefore, as per Sri Dwivedi, the earlier police report may not be absolved the petitioner from the allegations so levelled against him and other accused persons in the impugned F.I.R.

13. Sri Girijesh Kumar Dwivedi has also drawn attention of this Court 4 CRLP No. 8554 of 2025 towards para-3 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, wherein the reference of one writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.4589 of 2025 (CRLP); Mahendra Yadav and others vs. State of U.P. & others, has been given and that writ petition has already been dismissed being withdrawn on 28.05.2025, but the present petitioner is saying that he was not aware about that writ petition. He has stated that the aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the petitioner may not be accepted inasmuch as if any writ petition was filed by the petitioner or any other accused person, he must has signed the Vakalatnama and the information must have been given to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

14. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as police report and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. on

12.05.2025, we are not convinced from the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, rather, the allegations of the impugned F.I.R. are cognizable in nature. Therefore, this writ petition is misconceived, deserves to be dismissed.

15. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) September22,2025 Suresh/ SURESH CHANDRA SURESH CHANDRA SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench