ROHIT UPADHYAYversusState of U.P. AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
             APPLICATION U/S 482 NO. - 34871 of 2024

Rohit Upadhyay                                               …..Applicant(s)

                                 Versus

State of U.P. and                                      …..Opposite Party(s)
Another


Counsel for Applicant(s)          : Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)     : G.A. Shashi Bhushan Mishra, Sunil
                                    Kumar Singh

                                         Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:54772
                                                                          AFR
                                             Judgement Reserved on 20.01.2026
                                            Judgement Delivered on 18.03.2026
                                            Judgement Uploaded on 18.03.2026
Court No. - 78

                    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.

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
                                    2
                                                  A482 No. - 34871 of 2024

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
                                      3
                                                   A482 No. - 34871 of 2024

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 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
                                                                 4
                                                                                A482 No. - 34871 of 2024

                            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.


                                                                                    (Avnish Saxena,J.)

                            March 18, 2026
                            Abhishek Sri.




Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad