RAZA KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4232 of 2026

Raza Khan
                                                                .....Appellant(s)
                                     Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                             .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)         :   Anjani Kumar Shahwal, Ram Sajiwan
                                     Prajapati
Counsel for Respondent(s)        :   Vinod Kumar Singh, G.A.

Court No. - 51
                      HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of the present criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
the appellant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 12th February, 2026
passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Aligarh in Sessions Trial No.
2813 of 2025 (State Vs. Raja Khan) in arising out of Case Crime No. 94 of
2025, under Sections 64 (1), 352, 351 (2) B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (5) of
SC/ST Act Police Station Rorawar, District-Aligarh, whereby the discharge
application filed by the appellant under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

3. According to the prosecution, about two years ago, the prosecutrix went to
the Force Gym along with her brother Kishan for exercise. After a few days,
the owner of the Gym, Raja Khan, introduced himself as Raja (appellant
herein), a Hindu and asked her to be friends with him. Despite repeated
refusals by the prosecutrix, the appellant continued to peruse her. Finally, the
appellant beguiled her and befriended her.         10 months before, in the
afternoon, the appellant took her to DR Residence and Restorer hotel, where
despite the refusal of the prosecutrix, the appellant forcibly had established
physical relations with her. The appellant also took obscene photos and
videos and threatened to make them viral and has established physical
relations with her several times forcefully. When the prosecutrix that the
appellant named as Raja is a Muslim and his name is Raja Khan. When the
prosecutrix asked about the same from the appellant he said that he as she
has come to know about the his region, he will have to convert her religion and
become to a Muslim and she will have to marry him. The appellant also
pressurized the proscutrix several times to take her to the Dargah and the
Mosque to offer Namaz and when the marriage of the prosecutrix was
                                                              CRLA No. 4232 of 2026
                                   2

finalized, the appellant broke the marriage by showing her obscene photos
with him to the boy's family and threatened to kill her and her family and said
that he will marry her whereas the appellant named Raza Khan is already
married and is the father of three children and insulted the prosecutrix on the
basis of her caste and abused her.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order dated
12th February, 2026 passed by the learned Trial Court is wholly illegal,
arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles governing the disposal of a
discharge application. It is contended that the first information report has been
lodged on false and frivolous allegations. The prosecutrix is 27 years of age
and the physical relations established between the appellant and the
prosecutrix is consensual. The real fact is that the prosecutrix and her brother
used to come to his Gym for exercise and when the appellant demanded the
fee of Gym, she has engineered the present criminal case implicating him on
false grounds. There is discrepancies in the evidence led by the prosecution.
Despite these material discrepancies, the Investigating Officer submitted the
charge-sheet in a mechanical manner, and the learned Trial Court failed to
appreciate these infirmities while rejecting the discharge application.

5. It is also submitted that no prima facie case under the provisions of the
SC/ST Act is made out, as the essential ingredients of the alleged offences
are completely absent. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings
amounts to an abuse of the process of law, and the impugned order rejecting
the discharge application is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned
A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer made in the instant appeal and
supported the impugned order. It is submitted that prima facie case is made
out against the appellant. At this stage only prima facie case has to be seen.
The version as unfolded in the first information report is fully consistent with
the statements of the prosecutrix under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. and
the same has also been supported by mother, father and brother of the
prosecution in their statements recorded under Section 180 Cr.P.C. In
support of their contentions, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has
placed reliance upon a photo copy of the first information report lodged by the
prosecutrix against the appellant which has been registered as Case Crime
No. 0793 of 2025 under Sections 352, 351 (2) and 351 (3) B.N.S. wherein it
has been alleged that when the marriage of prosusecutrix has been fixed with
some other person, the appellant has met with the Mediator of the said
marriage and by showing the obscene photographs and videos of prosecutrix
with appellant to him, he got the said marriage broken. It is then stated that the
contentions raised on behalf of the appellants relate to disputed questions of
                                                             CRLA No. 4232 of 2026
                                  3

fact and would require appreciation of evidence. It is further submitted that at
the stage of consideration of discharge, only a prima facie case is to be seen,
and the court concerned is not expected to conduct a mini trial.

7. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the
State and also perused the material available on record including the
impugned order.

8. From perusal of the records, this Court finds that in the first information
report as well as in the statements recorded under Section 180 and 183
B.N.S.S. the prosusecutrix is consistent by alleging there that the appellant, by
telling the prosecutrix that he belonged to the Hindu community, developed an
illicit relationship with her and by making obscene photos and videos of her,
forced her to change her religion and marry him. When she refused, he
blackmailed her and got her marriage, which was being solemnized with
someone else, broken.

9. While passing the impugned order rejecting the discharge application of the
appellant, the trial court upon reviewing the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, file, has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to
frame charges against the accused Raja Khan under Sections 64 (1), 352,
351 (2), (2) and (5) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. The accused committed the crime
of rape by relying on the victim's free confession and obtaining her consent. In
such circumstances, the offender intimidated the victim and falsely
represented her. It is not necessary to thoroughly examine the evidence at this
stage to determine whether the evidence available on record is sufficient for
conviction. Considering the gravity of the charges leveled against the accused,
it is not legally appropriate to discharge the accused at this stage.

10. The legal position with regard to the scope of discharge under Section 227
Cr.P.C. is well settled. In Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and
Another [(1979) 3 SCC 4], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court
has to evaluate the material on record to determine whether a prima facie
case exists, but it cannot act as a trial court to weigh the evidence
conclusively. Similar principles have been reiterated in State of Bihar vs.
Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39] and Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI [(2010) 9 SCC
368], wherein it has been held that if the material on record discloses grave
suspicion against the accused, the Court would be justified in framing charges
and proceeding to trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in Palwinder
Singh vs. Balwinder Singh [(2009) ACC 65 (399) (SC)] has held that at the
stage of taking cognizance or considering a protest petition, the court is only
required to examine whether the material available on record gives rise to a
                                                                                                 CRLA No. 4232 of 2026
                                                                        4

                                    strong suspicion against the accused. If such strong suspicion exists, the court
                                    is justified in proceeding further. It is not permissible at this stage to undertake
                                    a meticulous appreciation of evidence or to evaluate the defence version, as
                                    those are matters to be considered during trial.

                                    11. From a perusal of the material available on record, as well as the
                                    impugned order, and the version as unfolded in the first information report,
                                    statements of the prosecutrix under Section 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., it is
                                    evident that the learned Trial Court, after considering each and every aspect
                                    of the matter, including the allegations made in the FIR, the statements of
                                    witnesses, and the nature of the accusations, has rightly rejected the
                                    application for discharge by holding that a prima facie offence is clearly made
                                    out against the appellants. As such, it cannot be said that the learned court
                                    concerned has acted without application of mind. The reasoning given by the
                                    learned court is just and proper.

                                    12. In view of the above, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.


                                    May 18, 2026
                                    Sushil/-
                                                                                                (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




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