# Rahul Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 1042
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-11
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 26852 of 2025
- **Bench:** Avnish Saxena
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rahul-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54859
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

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
3 All. Rahul Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1043
Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections - 161, 164, 482 - Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 90, 376, 313, 323, 506, 90 -
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections - 175(3), 528: - Application under Section 528
BNSS - for quashing the impugned charge sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings -
FIR - offence of rape on false promise of marriage, forced abortion, assault and intimidation - investigation
conducted, victim's statements recorded - charge sheet filed against applicant - trial initiated, victim examined
- applicant pleaded consensual relationship, absence of medical corroboration, and false implication - Court
finds that, consent was obtained under misconception of fact by false assurance of marriage, issue triable -
inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly in rarest of rare cases -
held, no ground made out for quashing - hence, application dismissed, proceedings to continue.
Application Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608,
Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451,
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335),
Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka ((2008 vol. 3 SCC 574),
Naresh Potteries v. Aarti Industries (2025 SCC Online SC 18),
Punit Beriwala v. State (NCT of Delhi) - 20255 SCC Online SC 983).

LIST OF ACTS
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Application under section 528 - Quashing of proceedings - inherent jurisdiction - False promise of marriage -
Consent under misconception of fact - Rape - Abortion medicine - Criminal intimidation - Quashing jurisdiction
- Rarest of rare case - Abuse of process of law - dismissed.

CASE ARISING FROM
Sessions Trial No. 550 of 2025 (State vs. Rahul Singh) - Case Crime No. 158 of 2024, P.S. Kishanpur, District
Fatehpur.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Manvendra Singh.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Devendra Singh, Sri Shashi Kant Tiwari, Learned AGA.

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

1. Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Devendra Singh, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Shashi Kant Tiwari, learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of the present application under Section 528 BNSS the accused/applicant
seeks interference of this Court to quash the charge sheet dated 29.09.2024, cognizance order dated
11.11.2024, taken by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Fatehpur and
the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 550 of 2025 (State Vs. Rahul Singh) arose out of Case Crime
No. 158 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 376, 313, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Kishanpur, District
Fatehpur, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No.1, Fatehpur.
1044 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. The prosecution case evolved through the FIR dated 19.08.2024, registered at Police
Station Kishanpur, District Fatehpur at 22:08 Hrs. against the five named persons, namely, Rahul
Singh (applicant), Narendra Singh, Raju, Munna and Vikas through an application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. The main allegation of rape on false promise of marriage is on accused/applicant.
The other co-accused were assigned the role of forcefully administering the medicine for getting
aborted the foetus, voluntary causing hurt, criminal intimidation and committing the crime with
common object. It is alleged in the FIR that the victim (opposite party no.2) was a widow having
three children. To nurture her family she has started a Tea Stall (Kiosk) at Vijaypur. Two years
back, she came in contact with accused/applicant, who used to visit the kiosk. With time the
accused/applicant has inquired about her marital status and the liability of three children upon her,
consequently, tendered his sympathy and help with the assurance that he being unmarried would
like to marry her and help her children. The victim being a hapless lady believed the
accused/applicant and entered into sexual intercourse on the assurance of the accused/applicant that
he will marry her. This relation was continued for nearly two years, during which period she
became pregnant. On 17.06.2024 at 10:00 p.m., the allegation is that all the accused/applicants
entered her house intimated that the accused/applicant is already married having two children. She
has to forget him and could be compensated in money. She was offered to take the medicine for
abortion, which she has refused, then the accused/applicant and other accused had forcibly
administered the medicine for aborting the foetus, consequently, she suffered abortion. She was
beaten with kicks and fists and criminally intimidated not to lodge any FIR, otherwise she and her
children would be thrown in Jamuna River. She has reached the police station next morning but
the police has not lodged any FIR, which led her to move the Magistrate Court for lodging of the
FIR, invoking Section 156(3)Cr.P.C./175(3)BNSS. After lodging of the FIR, the investigation has
been carried out. Her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have been recorded. The
Investigating Officer has submitted the police report finding sufficient material against the
accused/applicant for the offence under Section 376, 313, 323 and 506 IPC, whereas not charge
sheeted the other co-accused, namely, Narendra Singh, Raju, Munna and Vikas.

4. Leaned counsel for the accused/applicant submits that it is the case of rape on false
promise of marriage by an elderly lady, who is widow having three children. There is no medical
corroboration of the incident of rape. There is no specific date, time and place mentioned, where
the victim was subjected to rape on false promise of marriage. Further submits that an imaginary
date i.e. 17.06.2024 is carved out by the victim to build up a story of criminal intimidation and
forcefully administration of medicine for abortion as well as voluntary causing of hurt, though it
has no medical corroboration. The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not even
named the doctor or pharmacy from where she was prescribed the medicine, when she was
suffering from pain of abortion. Further submits that the accused/applicant is already married,
which is known to the victim. The relation between the two, as is reflected from the prosecution
case, is consensual in nature. Further submits that the landlord of the victim has categorically stated
that the accused/applicant did not come to the tenanted accommodation, where the victim resided
on 17.06.2024. Further submits that the accused/applicant is of a reputed family and has been
falsely implicated by the victim.

5. Learned counsel for the victim (opposite party no.2) and learned AGA for the State have
stated that there is allegation of rape on false promise of marriage. The cheating on the part of
3 All. Rahul Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1045
accused/applicant is clear and explicit from the material on record that the accused/applicant has
win over the confidence of the victim by stating that he is unmarried and would like to marry her.
The consent of the victim has been obtained by misrepresenting by the accused/applicant that he is
unmarried. The victim has not hidden her identity that she is a widow having three children, but the
accused/applicant has hidden his identity. Further submits that this is a matter of trial, whether the
consent of the victim was obtained by deceitful means or the victim was in know of the fact that the
accused/applicant is married. Further submits that there might not be the medical corroboration of
rape because the rape was consensual in nature and not forceful, which is obtained by playing
fraud. Further submits that the charge has been framed and the statement of victim has been
recorded as prosecution witness-1. Further submits that the trial has proceeded and the
accused/applicant has never resorted to the provision of discharge. Hence submits that the
application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

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

7. The present case revolves around committing of rape on a widow, whose consent has
been obtained under misconception of fact that the accused/applicant was not married man and he
would marry the victim. There is no point in reiterating Section 375, 376 read with Section 90 of
IPC, which deals with sexual intercourse when rape if obtained under misconception of fact.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and
another1 has made a clear distinction between the two prepositions, where the promise to marry is
bad from its very inception and where the promise to marry was subsequently could not justify into
marriage. The relevant paragraph 18 is reiterated underneath:-

 "18. To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the "consent"
of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards
the proposed act. To establish whether the "consent" was vitiated by a "misconception of fact"
arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage
must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at
the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct
nexus to the womans decision to engage in the sexual act."

8. The prosecution case is plain and simple that the victim was a widow with three children
and was running a kiosk, where the accused/applicant used to visit. It is during these visits that the
accused/applicant has obtained personal details of the victim and assured her of marriage. Though
the accused/applicant was fully aware that he is giving false assurance to the victim for marriage as
he was already married. Therefore, his assurance to the woman is false from the very beginning.

9. The victim in her counter affidavit has annexed her deposition, which was recorded on
08.09.2025. She was also being cross examined by the accused, which was continued at the time of
filing of counter affidavit.
1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. Prima facie, the consent of the victim was obtained for committing rape on false
promise of marriage. The awareness of the victim about the marriage of accused, is a question to be
tried.

11. The scope of 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 (1977) 4 SCC 451 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.

12. In view of the above, the Application under Section 528 BNSS is devoid of merit and
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 1046
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 28695 of 2025

Mohd. Zeeshan Siddiqui & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants under Section 528 BNSS deserve to be
quashed on the ground that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and the FIR is a counterblast to the
applicants' own FIR ?

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section - 528 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections - 323, 354-Kha, 352, 448,
452, 504, 506:- Application under Section 528 BNSS - for quashing of charge-sheet and summoning order
- FIR lodged alleging forceful entry, assault, and outraging modesty - investigation conducted - statements
recorded - charge-sheet filed - cognizance taken - trial initiated - another connected case - counter FIR
lodged by applicant no. 1 for the same date of incident - charge-sheet filed therein - civil suit also pending -
applicants pleaded that dispute is civil in nature and FIR is counterblast, contradictions in witness statements
- Court finds that, FIR discloses prima facie cognizable offence, evaluation of evidence lies within trial court's
domain - inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to be exercised sparingly, not for disputed facts - held,