# Rohit Upadhyay v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 1050
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-18
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 34871 of 2024
- **Bench:** Avnish Saxena
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rohit-upadhyay-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54863
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

1050 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons. The applicants are named in the FIR and from the contents of the FIR, prima facie, cognizable
offence is made out and it is alleged that they entered into the house of the informant forcefully and misbehaved with him and when his daughter-in-law came for rescue then they mis-behaved with her also and
outraged her modesty, and tore her clothes. The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of informant
and the victim and thereafter, after collecting the evidence has filed charge-sheet under Sections- 452,
354(kha), 352, 323, 504, 448 and 506 IPC before the competent court. The concerned court has taken
cognizance of the offence.

12. It is submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the applicants that the dispute between both the
parties are civil in nature as there was a builders agreement between the first informant and the applicant
no.1 for construction of the disputed house. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the
statements of witnesses recorded by the IO during investigation which raises serious doubt over the
prosecution case.

13. Admittedly, for an incident of the same date, the applicant no. 1 has also filed an FIR and in that
case also charge-sheet has been filed. Therefore, both parties have lodged FIR against each other for offence
of the same date, with different versions. Whether the present case is a counterblast of the FIR lodged by the
applicant no. 1 or not, is a matter for the trial court to decide which requires evaluation of evidence and this
Court cannot go through all this, in this proceeding, and form an opinion in this regard.

14. This Court in proceeding under Section 528 BNSS cannot evaluate the evidence, and form an
opinion on the disputed facts raised on behalf of the applicant which is under the domain of the trial court.
The effect of contradictions in statements of witnesses, if any, recorded by the Investigating Officer is also for
the trial court to decide. Prima facie pendency of civil case also has no effect over this case. Overall, the
allegations levelled against the applicants prima facie, discloses commission of cognizable offence and in
view of the above, there is no good ground to exercise inherent power of this Court in the instant matter.

15. Accordingly, this application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 1050
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 34871 of 2024

Rohit Upadhyay ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
3 All. Rohit Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1051
Whether the allegations in the FIR and victim's statements under Sections 161 & 164 CrPC disclose a prima
facie case warranting trial, or whether continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law,
justifying quashing under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 BNSS?

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161, 164, 482 - Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 384, 506: -
Application u/s 482 - seeking quashing of criminal proceedings - FIR - allegations of rape, blackmail, and
exploitation under guise of exorcism - Victim's statements corroborated by supplementary affidavit containing
indecent videos/photos - Scope of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC / 528 BNSS limited to rarest of
rare cases - applicant pleaded, false implication, family enmity, consensual relationship, and money
transactions - Court found that, there is triable issues and prima facie case is made out against the
accused/applicant for continuance of trial - and inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC / 528 BNSS should
be exercised with circumspection and in rarest of rare and appropriate cases - by citing precedents, court held
that, present case is not fitting rarest of rare category - therefore, charge sheet as well as the proceedings
cannot be quashed - application is accordingly dismissed.
(Para - 9, 10, 11)
Application Dismissed. (E-11)
CASE LAW CITED
Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka (2008) 3 SCC 574
Naresh Potteries v. Aarti Industries 2025 SCC OnLine SC 18
Punit Beriwala v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983

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

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Quashing of proceedings, Rarest of rare, Exorcism, Blackmail, Indecent videos, Prima facie case, Abuse of
process, Consensual relationship plea, Victim statement, Trial continuation.

CASE ARISING FROM
Case No. 68572 of 2024 (State v. Rohit Upadhyay), arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of 2024, P.S. Koirauna,
District Bhadohi.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri S.B. Singh, Ms. Reena Gupta, learned A.G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the accused/applicant, Sri
S.B.Singh, learned Advocate holding the brief appeared for the opposite party no.2 and Ms. Reena
Gupta, learned AGA for the State. Perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been moved to quash the
proceeding of Case No. 68572 of 2024 (State Vs. Rohit Upadhyay) arising out of Case Crime no.
17 of 2024, under Sections 506, 376, 384 IPC, P.S. Koirauna, District Bhadohi, pending in the
court of learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Bhadohi at Gyanpur.
1052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. The prosecution as set out from the bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the victim being
a married lady has lodged the first information report on 16.02.2024 for the incident of 16.02.2022
and subjected to repeated rape by the accused/applicant, who claimed to be an exorcist. In the grab
of treatment of two years old son of victim, he has called the victim in his house at 09:00 p.m. and
gave Laddoo as Prasad. After consuming the Prasad, the victim became unconscious and
when she regained consciousness, she found her clothes open. She has complained the accused
about his action, on which the accused has stated to have recorded her odd videos and photographs.

4. In the statement under Section 161 and 164 CrPC, the victim has stated to have been
raped subsequently on being blackmailed that he made the videos and photographs viral.

5. Learned counsel for the accused/applicant has submitted that a false and frivolous case
has been lodged by the victim against the accused, who is her neighbor at her parental home. There
is enmity between the families, which led to the lodging of the FIR. Further submits that there is
exaggeration in the statement of victim, who has initially made the FIR belatedly for the offence of
disrobing her modesty, which lateron improved to committing of rape on the victim. There is no
indecent videos and photographs ever recorded by the accused/applicant. The applicant has given
money to the family members of the victim, through Google Pay. Further submits that there was
love relation between the accused/applicant and victim and the sexual relation between the two,
which was consensual in nature. He, therefore, submits that the application be allowed. The charge
sheet and the proceedings shall be quashed.

6. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application
stating that the accused/applicant is an exorcist, who has exploited the situation, wherein the victim
was subjected to rape by the accused/applicant, on practicing exorcism to treat her child. Further
submits that the accused/applicant by means of supplementary affidavit has annexed some of the
indecent videos and photograph, which he has made viral and subject matter of trial. It is further
submitted that the victim is not aware about any money transaction entered into between the
accused/applicant and her family members. Further submits that the victim went to Orissa to live
with her husband, where the accused/applicant has followed for seeking sexual favours by
blackmailing her. This led to lodging of the FIR. Further submits that the application is devoid of
merits and liable to be dismissed.

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

8. The point of consideration in the present case is whether the allegations made in the FIR
and the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. is prima faice sufficient to
proceed with the trial or the same tantamount to misuse of the process of law.

9. The FIR lodged against the accused/applicant reveals that the accused/applicant
practiced exorcism. The victim was called by the accused/applicant at his residence for treating the
ailment of two years old son of the victim. The victim was given Prasad with stupefied
substance that led to her became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, she found herself with
her clothes open. There is no love relations between the two, as is claimed by the accused/applicant
3 All. U.P. State Power Corp. Ltd. Vs. Moh. Nisar @ Bade Lalla
1053
but denied by the victim. The possession of indecent videos and photographs of the victim
with the accused/applicant is reflected from the supplementary affidavit filed by the
accused/applicant. It is a matter of trial that how the applicant is in possession of the same, but it
prima facie substantiate the allegation of the victim made in the FIR and in her statement under
Section 161 and 164 CrPC. There is an allegation that she was subjected to repeated rape by the
accused/applicant. There is also the allegation that she was also offered to the friends of
accused/applicant. Therefore, there is triable issue and prima facie case is made out against the
accused/applicant for continuance of trial.

10. 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 Haryana
(1977) 4 SCC 451 and the State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335.
In the case of Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 574, 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
Industries, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 18 and Punit Beriwala Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983.

11. Considering the legal principles, record and arguments this Court is of the opinion that
there is ample material on record on the basis of which the trial could be proceeded against the
accused/applicant. The case does not fit in the category of rarest of rate case. Thereafter, charge
sheet as well as the proceedings cannot be quashed in the light of observation made here-in-above.

12. In view of the above, the Application under Section 482 CrPC is devoid of merit and
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 1053
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 118 of 2014

U.P. State Power Corp. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Moh. Nisar @ Bade Lalla ....Respondent

Issues for Consideration