# Ajay Saini v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 1035
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-16
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 15904 of 2025
- **Bench:** Avnish Saxena
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-saini-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54857
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

3 All. Ajay Saini Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1035
 "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law
cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two
witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The
order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the
facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made
in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be
sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the
Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning
of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may
even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the
truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie
committed by all or any of the accused."

14. After going through the record, this Court finds that the present complaint is nothing
but a counter blast to the case instituted by the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act against
opposite party no.2. because the same has been filed subsequently after service of notice under
Section 138 of the NI Act upon him. Opposite party no.2 wanted to settle his personal score and
that is why he has filed the present complaint with an expectation that some compromise may takes
place between the parties. Therefore, it can be inferred on the face of record that the present
complaint has been filed by opposite party n.2 with mala fide intention. The case of the applicant is
covered with the judgements of Bhajan Lal and Pepsi Foods Limited (supra), therefore, the present
proceedings cannot go on as it amounts to abuse of process of law and deserved to be quashed.

15. Application is accordingly allowed and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case
No.3394 of 2019, Krishna Lal Sharma Vs. Rudra Pratap Singh, under Sections 504 and 506 IPC,
Police Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow and the summoning order dated 26.06.2022 passed by
the Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow, so far it relates to the applicant, are hereby quashed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 1035
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 15904 of 2025

Ajay Saini ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether continuance of criminal proceedings against the accused-applicant under Sections 376, 328, 504,
506, 323 IPC, arising from Case Crime No. 221 of 2024, amounts to abuse of process of law and warrants
quashing under Section 528 BNSS?
1036 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section - 180, 183, 528, - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 328, 376, 504, 506, - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 164, 482: - Application under Section 528 BNSS - for seeking quashing of Charge Sheet, cognizance
order and proceedings of whole criminal proceedings - offence of rape - FIR - lodged belatedly after four
years alleging rape on false promise of marriage - investigation - statements recorded - contradictions noted
regarding place, medium, and circumstances of alleged stupefied substance administration - no particulars of
continued acts of rape - applicant pleaded that proceedings are false, frivolous, and constitute abuse of
process - Court finds that the present case stands on the footing of rarest of rare case to invoke the inherent
jurisdiction for quashing the criminal proceedings, as continuing with criminal proceedings would be in futility
and gross misuse of criminal jurisdiction - held - continuation of proceedings would be futile and gross misuse
of criminal law - therefore application is liable to be allowed - consequently, charge sheet, cognizance order,
and proceedings are quashed qua the applicant.
Application Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Samadhan S/o Sitaram Manmothe vs. State of Maharashtra - (2025 SCC Online SC 2528),
Kurukshetra University vs. State of Haryana - (1997) 4 SCC 451),
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal - 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,
Som Mittal vs. Government of Karnataka (2008) 3 SCC 574,
Naresh Potteries vs. Aarti Industries (2025 SCC OnLine SC 18),
Punit Beriwala vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025 SCC OnLine SC 983),
Ravish Singh Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1055),
Prashant vs. NCT of Delhi (2025) 5 SCC 764,
Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC).

LIST OF ACTS
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C.).

LIST OF KEYWORDS
FIR - delay in FIR - Rape - Cheating - chargesheet - summoning order - criminal proceedings - false promise
of marriage - Consensual relationship - Quashing of proceedings - victim - inherent jurisdiction - consent or
not consent - non-fulfilment of promise - contradictions in statements - inherent jurisdiction - rarest of rare
case - Allowed.

CASE ARISING FROM
Case Crime No. 221 of 2024, P.S. Kotwali, District Rampur; Charge Sheet No. 213 of 2024 dated 25.12.2024;
Case No. 82 of 2025 (State vs. Ajay Saini and others)

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Vinod Singh.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Surendra Nath Tripathi, Shri Anuj Kumar, learned A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Avnish Saxena, J.)

1. Heard, Shri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the accused-applicant; Shri Surendra Nath
Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2; and Shri Anuj Kumar, learned A.G.A. for
State.
3 All. Ajay Saini Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1037
2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been moved by accused-applicant
with a prayer to quash the Charge Sheet No. 213 of 2024 dated 25.12.2024, cognizance taking
order dated 23.01.2025 and the proceedings of Case No. 82 of 2025 (State Vs. Ajay Saini and
others), Case Crime No. 221 of 2024 for offence under Sections 376, 328, 504, 506, 323 IPC, P.S.-
Kotwali, District- Rampur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Rampur.

3. The accused applicant is the main accused in the FIR lodged by opposite party no. 2, the
victim on 03.12.2024 at 17:51 hours, P.S.- Kotwali, Rampur against three accused namely Ajay
Saini (applicant), his father Charan Saini and brother Ravi Saini. It is alleged in the FIR that the
victim after completing her GNM (General Nursing and Midwifery) course from Neelavedi
College, Shahzad Nagar in the year 2019, was in search of a job. It during this period that she came
in contact with the accused applicant, who was a running Pradhanmantri Jan Aushadhi Medical
Store at Rajdware, the accused has allured the victim for a job in private hospital situated at
Moradabad and taking her to Moradabad where the victim was taken to hotel room and given a
cold drink with stupefied substance. The victim became unconscious and the accused applicant has
committed rape on her. On regaining consciousness she has opposed the act of accused, on which
the accused has assured her of marriage. For continuously four years the accused applicant has
committed rape of victim on false promise of marriage. Some days prior to the lodging of the FIR,
the victim came to know that the accused has engaged somewhere else. Victim has intimated the
act of accused to her family members. The family members of victim went to meet the family
members of accused at their residence, where Charan Saini, the father of the accused and Ravi
Saini, the brother of accused hurled abuses and threatened to kill them and forced them out from
their residence. The investigation has been carried out. The statement of victim is recorded under
Sections 180 BNSS and 164 CrPC (as mentioned). After getting sufficient material the
Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the accused applicant for offence under
Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 328 IPC, whereas the other two accused were charge sheeted for
offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC.

4. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused applicant that a false and frivolous
case has been lodged by the victim for rape on false promise of marriage. There is a delay of four
years in lodging the FIR. The substance of FIR is broken relations. The FIR is lodged only when
the victim came to know that accused applicant is going to marry somewhere else. There is no date,
time and place of incident where the alleged rape was committed for the first time. The version of
victim kept on changing in her averment made in FIR and in her statements given to the
Investigating Officer under Section 180 BNSS and to the Magistrate while recording the statement
under Section 164 CrPC. The Investigating Officer has not taken into consideration that the entire
statement is bereft of particulars. In the FIR the victim has stated that she was taken to a hotel room
whereas in her statement under Section 180 BNSS she stated that she has taken cold drink in the
restaurant, which contain stupefied substance. In her statement under Section 164 CrPC she has
stated that she has taken the meals in the restaurant and became unconscious, from where she was
taken to the hotel room. Further submits that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against
the accused would tantamount to miscarriage of justice. Further submits that the application is
liable to be allowed. Learned counsel has relied on the case of Samadhan S/o Sitaram Manmothe
Vs. State of Maharashtra and another1.
1038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5. Learned counsel for victim and learned AGA for State have submitted that the accused
applicant has continuously exploited the victim for four years. The matter pertains to rape which
occurred in the year 2019 when the accused applicant has taken the victim to Moradabad for
getting her a job in a private hospital. There the victim was not interviewed in any hospital but was
taken to the hotel where she was administered some stupefied substance in cold drink or food and
subjected to rape. The victim on regaining consciousness had opposed the act of accused. The
accused then assured her of marriage, which was false assurance from the very beginning. Even on
false assurance of marriage the victim was continuously subjected to rape for four years. The FIR is
lodged when the victim came to know that the accused is going to marry some other girl and has
spoiled her life on false assurance of marriage. The victim and family then approached the family
members of the accused applicant, where they were abused and threatened. The Investigating
Officer has found sufficient material against the accused applicant and his family members for
submission of charge sheet. Further submits that the application is misconceived and liable to be
dismissed.

6. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

7. The point of consideration in the present application is whether the material on record
collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, including the statement of victim,
whether pointing to prima facie case of rape or continuance of proceeding tantamount to be an
abuse of process of law and is the rarest of rare case wherein the Court should apply its inherent
jurisdiction for procuring the ends of justice and quash the proceedings.

8. The scope and ambit of the powers of the High Court invoking under Section 482 CrPC
or 528 BNSS are very wide, but should be exercised with circumspection and in rarest of rare and
appropriate cases. This power do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction to act according to whims and
caprice and is used to prevent the abuse of process of law and for procuring the ends of justice.
This preposition of law is enunciated in the cases of Kurukshetra University Vs. State of
Haryana2 and the State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal3. In the case of Som Mittal Vs. Government
of Karnataka4, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has given an expression of 'rarest of rare case', while
describing the scope of Section 482 CrPC. This view is consistently maintained by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court till the present day, which is settled by 'en' number of judgments, latest are Naresh
Potteries Vs. Aarti Industries5 and Punit Beriwala Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi6.

9. To ascertain, whether the present case falling within the category of rarest of rare case, it
would be expedient to consider the contents of the FIR, the statement of victim recorded by the
Investigation Officer and the Magistrate and the material on record. But prior to start the prima
facie appreciation of material, two paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed by the victim,
particularly paragraph 7 and 8, which is also the crux of the matter are reiterated underneath:-

 "....

 7. That the content of paragraph no. 7 & 8 of the affidavit need no comments, it is matter
of record. However it is submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has completed G.N.M. Course in
3 All. Ajay Saini Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1039
2019, she meet to Ajay Saini who running Jan Ausadhi Medical Store in Rajwara Rampur, he
carried to opposite party no. 2 to Moradabad and he carried to opposite party no. 2 in the Hotel
and he mixed intoxicating substance in cold drink and made him drink him and forcibly committed
rape with her, when she objected, then applicant said toher that he will marry, pretending
marriage he continuously committed rape. Some time ago he wanted to marriage on other lady,
when she complaint then they abusing her.

 8. That the content of paragraph no. 9 of the affidavit need no comments, it is matter of
records. However it is submitted that on the assurance of the applicant she always made relation
with applicant due to this no any injury was found on the internal or external part of body, because
she is major.

10. The plain reading of FIR reveals that the initial incident is of the year 2019. There is no
particulars about the date, time and place of incident. The allegation is that the victim has
completed the GNM course and was in search of a job. She came in contact with the accused
applicant who was running Pradhanmantri Jan Aushadhi Medical Store. The entire prosecution case
is silent as to how the victim came in contact with the accused applicant and how she has believed
that the accused applicant will get her a job in a hospital at Moradabad. The allegation is that
accused applicant has taken the victim to Moradabad for her interview at the hospital. There is
nothing to disclose as to what happened in the interviews and in which hospital she was taken for
the interview. On the contrary there was a description that the victim was taken to a hotel room and
administered with the cold drink having stupefied substance. This hotel room mentioned in the FIR
is changed to restaurant-cum-hotel in her statement under Sections 180 BNSS and 183 BNSS
(Section 164 CrPC). The name of the hotel is not disclosed either in the FIR or in the statement
under Section 180 BNSS, but in the statement under Section 164 CrPC the area of the restaurant is
mentioned as near railway station Buddha Bazar. The statement of victim further kept on changing
regarding the cold drink or food in which the stupefied substance was mixed. In the statement
under Section 180 BNSS and in the FIR it was mixed with cold drink, whereas in the statement
under Section 164 CrPC it was in the food which was offered at the restaurant the stupefied
substance was mixed. The prosecution case is further silent about the food, victim ate or the cold
drink she has consumed and whether the stupefied substance could be mixed in the food which is
offered in the restaurant. The allegation in the FIR is about the hotel room, where stupefied
substance was administered, but in her statements under Sections 180 BNSS and 164 CrPC, she has
stated to have consumed the stupefied substance at the restaurant and later on she was taken to the
hotel room of the same restaurant. Further allegation is committing of rape by the accused applicant
while the victim was unconscious, but when she regained consciousness, she felt that she has been
raped, the accused has tendered apology and promised her to marry. The victim has not lodged any
complaint for the act of the accused of committing rape at that point of time.

11. The subsequent allegation is continued committing of rape on false promise of
marriage by the accused from 2019 till she came to know that accused applicant is going to marry
another girl. There is no detail and particulars where the victim was continuously being raped on
false promise of marriage. The date, time and place of such occurrence is silent. The prosecution
case reveals only bald allegation.
1040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. The reason for lodging of FIR on 03.12.2024 is mentioned in the FIR that some days
back the victim came to know that the accused applicant is entering into marriage with any other
girl and then she along with her family members reached the residence of accused applicant on
18.08.2024, where she was threatened along with her family members by the father and brother of
accused applicant.

13. The victim is an educated person and was in relation with the accused applicant since
last four years.

14. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ravish Singh Rana Vs. State of
Uttarakhand7 (relevant paragraph 14 & 15) and Prashant Vs. NCT of Delhi8 (relevant paragraph
20) has made observation that the two able minded adults, if maintained a long term physical
relations, then a presumption would arise that they have voluntarily chosen the consensual
relationship and subsequent non fulfillment of promise of marriage would not attract any offence.
The relevant paragraphs are reiterated underneath:-

 Ravish Singh Rana (supra)

 "14. In the instant case also, we find that the relationship between the appellant and the
second respondent (the informant) was spread over two years. Further, they not only admit of
having physical relations with each other but also of living together in a rented accommodation as
a live-in couple. In our view, if two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more
than a couple of years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily
chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences. Therefore, the allegation that
such relationship was entered because there was a promise of marriage is in the circumstances
unworthy of acceptance, particularly, when there is no allegation that such physical relationship
would not have been established had there been no promise to marry.

 15. Moreover, in a long drawn live-in relationship, occasions may arise where parties in
that relationship express their desire or wish to formalize the same by a seal of marriage, but that
expression of desire, or wish, by itself would not be indicative of relationship being a consequence
of that expression of desire or wish. A decade or two earlier, live-in relationships might not have
been common. But now more and more women are financially independent and have the capacity
to take conscious decision of charting their life on their own terms. This financial freedom,inter
alia, has led to proliferation of such live-in relationships. Therefore, when a matter of this nature
comes to a court, it must not adopt a pedantic approach rather the Court may, based on the length
of such relationship and conduct of the parties, presume implied consent of the parties to be in such
a relationship regardless of their desire or a wish to convert it into a marital bond."

 Prashant (supra)

 "20. In our view, taking the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet as they stand, the
crucial ingredients of the offence under Section 376(2)(n)IPC are absent. A review of the FIR and
the complainant's statement under Section 164CrPC discloses no indication that any promise of
marriage was extended at the outset of their relationship in 2017. Therefore, even if the
3 All. Ajay Saini Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1041
prosecution's case is accepted at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the complainant
engaged in a sexual relationship with the appellant solely on account of any assurance of marriage
from the appellant. The relationship between the parties was cordial and also consensual in nature.
A mere break up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of
criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages
cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital
relationship. Further, both parties are now married to someone else and have moved on in their
respective lives. Thus, in our view, the continuation of the prosecution in the present case would
amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, no purpose would be served by
continuing the prosecution."

15. In the case of Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra9 (relevant paragraphs
27 & 28) Hon'ble the Supreme Court has made observation that where physical relationship is
maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, which cannot be said with certainty
that the physical relation was purely because of alleged promise of marriage. A woman may have
reasons to have physical relationship other than promise of marriage, like, the personal liking for
the male partner.

16. Learned counsel for applicant has relied on the judgment of Samadhan S/o Sitaram
Manmothe Vs. State of Marashtra and another (supra) and drawn the attention of this Court
towards paragraphs 28 and 29. The same are reiterated underneath:-

 "27. In this regard, it becomes relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of
Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 11 SCC 398, ("Mahesh Damu") wherein
the following observations were made:

 "27. In our view, if a man is accused of having sexual relationship by making a false
promise of marriage and if he is to be held criminally liable, any such physical relationship must
be traceable directly to the false promise made and not qualified by other circumstances or
consideration. A woman may have reasons to have physical relationship other than the promise of
marriage made by the man, such as personal liking for the male partner without insisting upon
formal marital ties.

 28. Thus, in a situation where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period
knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was
purely because of the alleged promise made by the appellant to marry her. Thus, unless it can be
shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby
having a direct nexus with the physical relationship without being influenced by any other
consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent under misconception of fact."

 (underlining by us)

 28. We find that the present case is not a case where the appellant lured respondent No.2
solely for physical pleasures and then vanished. The relationship continued for a period of three
long years, which is a considerable period of time. They remained close and emotionally involved.
1042 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
In such cases, physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship
cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape merely because the relationship
failed to culminate in marriage.

 29. This Court has, on numerous occasions, taken note of the disquieting tendency
wherein failed or broken relationships are given the colour of criminality. The offence of rape,
being of the gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence,
coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not
only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and
grave injustice. Such instances transcend the realm of mere personal discord. The misuse of the
criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound concern and calls for
condemnation.

17. The prima facie facts of the case discussed here-in-above including the legal
propositions, this Court found that the present case stands on the footing of rarest of rare case to
invoke the inherent jurisdiction for quashing the criminal proceedings, as continuing with criminal
proceedings would be in futility and gross misuse of criminal jurisdiction. Hence, the application
under Section 528 BNSS is having merit and liable to be allowed.

18. The application is allowed.

19. The Charge Sheet No. 213 of 2024 dated 25.12.2024, cognizance taking order dated
23.01.2025 and the proceedings of Case No. 82 of 2025 (State Vs. Ajay Saini and others), Case
Crime No. 221 of 2024 for offence under Sections 376, 328, 504, 506, 323 IPC, P.S.- Kotwali,
District- Rampur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Rampur, are
hereby quashed qua the applicant.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 1042
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 26852 of 2025

Rahul Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the criminal proceedings, charge sheet and cognizance order should be quashed under Section 528
BNSS?

HEADNOTES