Allahabad High Court

MANISH SHARMA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 19 March 2026
Bench: SANDEEP CHAUDHARY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

No offence under the IPC or the SC/ST Act is made out, and the cognizance and charge‑sheet are set aside.

Summary

The victim, a Scheduled Caste woman, alleged that she had a consensual relationship of over two years with the appellant, a Brahmin, and that he later refused to marry her while hurling caste‑based insults. The FIR was registered under Sections 69 and 352 of the IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellants contended that the relationship was consensual, no specific promise of marriage was made, and the alleged abuses were made over telephone without any public caste‑based slur, thus no offence was made out. The prosecution argued that the false promise of marriage and caste‑based abuse constituted an atrocity under the SC/ST Act. The Court examined the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the CrPC and found no concrete evidence of a false promise of marriage or specific caste‑based abuse in public. Consequently, the Court held that no offence was established, set aside the cognizance and charge‑sheet, quashed the proceedings, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the alleged refusal to marry and verbal abuse constitute an offence under Sections 69 and 352 of the IPC.
Whether the conduct amounts to an atrocity under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, 1989.
Whether the cognizance and charge‑sheet issued by the Special Judge are legally sustainable.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 352, 69
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va)

Subjects

Scheduled Caste
SC/ST Act
false promise of marriage
consensual relationship
caste‑based abuse
criminal procedure
quash
cognizance
charge sheet

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1589 of 2026

Manish Sharma And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashish Rai, Om Prakash Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Ghazala Bano Quadri, Saima
Khan

Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard Shri Om Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms.
Ghazala Bano Quadri, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Shri
K.K. Gupta, learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of The Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been
preferred by the appellants with a prayer to allow the appeal and quash
the the entire proceeding of S.S.T. No. 75 of 2026 (State versus Manish
Sharma and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 594 of 2025, under
Section 69, 352 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)V, 3(2)5a S.C./S.T. Act, Police
Station Modinagar, District Ghaziabad, pending before the Court of
Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act/Additional District & Session Judge,
Ghaziabad as well as quash the Charge Sheet dated 30.12.2025 and also
Cognizance /Summoning Order dated 14.01.2026 passed in the aforesaid
case.

3. The informant/victim, aged about 20 years, stated in FIR that she was
in a physical relationship with appellant no.1-Manish Sharma for the last
about two and a half years. She has alleged that when she asked him to
marry her, he refused. It is further alleged that he made remarks about her
caste and his mother, appellant no.2, also spoke offensive words to her
regarding her caste. The informant belongs to Scheduled Caste, whereas
the accused belongs to Brahmin caste.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the allegations in the
CRLA No. 1589 of 2026
2

FIR indicate that the relationship between the victim and appellant no.1
was consensual and continued for more than two years. In her statement
under Section 180 BNSS, the prosecutrix has admitted that the
relationship between them was consensual. She has alleged that the
appellant no.1 refused to marry her. She has further alleged that on
08.09.2025, the appellant abused her, and when her mother took her
phone, he also abused her mother. It is submitted that the allegations are
only of hurling abuses. A consensual relationship between the parties,
subsequent refusal to marry, and alleged abuses do not constitute any
offence. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the appellants are
illegal and liable to be set aside.

5. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent/informant
submitted that the statement of the victim is specific to the effect that she
was exploited by the appellant no.1 on the pretext of marriage. It is
submitted that establishing a physical relationship without any intention
to marry is sufficient to constitute an offence on the ground of false
promise of marriage. The victim has further alleged that she was also
abused by the appellants. The impugned order of taking cognizance
against the appellants is not illegal.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the entire record including the impugned order.

7. Statement of victim and her parents were perused. Both parents have
admitted consensual relationship between victim and appellant no.1. Her
father stated that appellants abused his children. Mother of victim stated
that victim and appellant no.1 were quarrelling over telephone. When she
took phone from her daughter and talked to appellant no.1 and his mother,
both hurled abuses at her. Victim has also made similar allegations in her
statement under Section 180 BNSS. However, she has not disclosed in her
statement under Section 183 BNSS that whether the abuses were hurled at
any particular place or it did take place during telephonic conversations.
Even none witnesses have mentioned about the specific caste based
abuses made by appellants.

8. From perusal of the FIR and the statements of the victim and her
CRLA No. 1589 of 2026
3

parents, it is clear that relationship between the victim and the appellant
no.1 was consensual and continued for more than two and a half years.
The victim has also admitted this fact in her statement under Section 180
BNSS. The main allegation is that the appellant no.1 later refused to
marry her. There is no specific claim that any promise of marriage was
ever made by the said appellant. Regarding the allegation of false promise
of marriage, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant no.1
never intended to marry her from the beginning. Mere refusal to marry at
a later stage does not amount to an offence.

9. As regards the allegation of abuse, the statements show that the
alleged abuses were made during telephonic conversation. There is no
clear allegation of any specific caste-based abuse made at a public place
or within public view. The allegations are general and do not contain
specific details.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that no offence is
made out against the appellants under Sections 69 and 352 BNS or under
Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Therefore, the impugned
order taking cognizance against the appellants is not sustainable in law
and is liable to be set aside.

11. In view of the above, the cognizance/summoning order dated
14.01.2026 and charge-sheet dated 30.12.2025 are set aside, and the entire
proceeding of S.S.T. No. 75 of 2026 (State versus Manish Sharma and
others), arising out of Case Crime No. 594 of 2025, under Section 69, 352
B.N.S. and Section 3(2)V, 3(2)5a S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station
Modinagar, District Ghaziabad, pending before the Court of Special
Judge S.C./S.T. Act/Additional District & Session Judge, Ghaziabad, are
quashed.

12. This criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
March 20, 2026
SK

Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…