Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In an application under Section 528, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS) filed by four applicants-accused for quashing proceeding in case wherein Accused 1 was accused of engaging in sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage with the victim, 26 years old, stating that the relationship was consensual and his wife, sister and brother-in-law were alleged to have, along with him, caused voluntary hurt, intentional insult and criminal intimidated the complainant in aggravated manner, a Single Judge Bench of Avnish Saxena, J., held that Accused 1, knowing he was married, entered into sexual relations with the victim under a false promise of marriage, thus, the allegation of deceit is from the very beginning of entering into sexual intercourse.
Background
On 22 May 2025, Opposite Party 2 lodged the FIR against four accused and alleged that the victim met Accused 1 through Facebook and, since May 2018, was repeatedly involved in sexual relations on a false promise of marriage and she became pregnant four times and was made to abort each time. Later, she became pregnant for the fifth time.
Whenever she asked about marriage, Accused 1 avoided answering after learning of her pregnancy, he pressured her to abort, but she refused. He then refused marriage and threatened to kill her, hurt her, and abuse her. His wife, sister, and brother-in-law also threatened her, offered money, and pressured her family to compromise on a heavy amount.
The FIR further stated that Accused 1 possessed her indecent photos and videos, which he used to blackmail her. At the time of giving her statements, she was six months pregnant.
Issue, Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that the issue involved in the present case was as to whether, prima facie, the allegations levelled by the victim on the accused was sufficient to proceed with the trial or continuance of the trial would amount to gross abuse of process of law?
The Court noted that the victim was pregnant at the time of lodging of the FIR and gave birth to a baby girl on 1 October 2025 and in the medical certificate, the name of father was recorded as the name of Accused 1 and it had been admitted by him that it was his child.
Regarding the accused’s reliance on Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, the Court stated that it was “not applicable in the present case because the fact of the case is that the allegation of rape on false promise of marriage continued for more than one year levelled by a woman having a child, obtained Khulanama, not a formal divorce, from her erstwhile husband and the allegation is levelled on a student, who was residing next door with three other men.”
The Court noted that in the case at hand, Accused 1 is a married man and came in contact with the victim through social media app, called her to a hotel where they had entered in sexual intercourse and the as per the victim, she did not know whether he was married to a woman of her own village. Further, the Court stated that “the prior knowledge of victim that Accused 1 was married at the time when she entered into sexual intercourse with him was matter of trial, because the record was explicit on the point that the victim was not knowing about his marital status.”
However, the Court held that Accused 1 while entering into sexual intercourse with the victim knew that he is a married man and his false promise of marriage to the victim would be broken, therefore, the allegation of deceit was from the very beginning of entering into sexual intercourse. Further, the Court stated that the point of consent of sexual intercourse, knowing the marriage of Accused 1, was a matter of trial and the allegation of criminal intimidation levelled on other co-accused persons was also apparent and explicit on record and subject-matter of trial.
The Court stressed that “The scope of ambit of the powers of the High Court invoking under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS are very wide but should be exercised with circumspection and in rarest of rare and appropriate cases. This power does 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.”
Thus, the Court dismissed the case at hand.
[Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P., Application u/S 528 BNSS No. 45399 of 2025, decided on 23-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicants: Mohd. Imran, Syed Safdar Ali Kazmi, Advocates
For the Opposite Party: Lalit Kumar Pandey, Sheshadri Trivedi, G.A.