Allahabad High Court
SAURABH TEOTIAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The appeal is dismissed as the matters of the victim’s age and consent are factual issues for trial and the cited Supreme Court precedent does not apply.
Summary
The appellant Saurabh Teotia appealed against a charge sheet and cognizance order relating to alleged sexual offences committed in 2017 when the complainant was purportedly 17 years old. The complainant alleged that the appellant lured her with a promise of marriage, established a physical relationship, and later the appellant circulated photographs and videos of her. The appellant contended that the victim was a consenting adult, citing a medical report indicating she was 24 years old and that he had transferred Rs. 2.5 Lakhs to her account. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Naim Ahamed v. State, arguing that consensual sexual relationships should not attract criminal liability. The High Court held that the crucial questions of the victim’s age at the time of the alleged offence and her consent are factual matters to be determined at trial, and that the cited Supreme Court judgment was not applicable to the present facts. Consequently, the Court found no legal merit in the appeal and dismissed it. The appeal was therefore dismissed without addressing the merits of the charge sheet.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence in 2017.
- Whether the alleged victim gave valid consent to the sexual relationship.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s judgment in Naim Ahamed v. State is applicable to the present case.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- sexual offence
- minor
- consent
- SC/ST Act
- criminal appeal
- charge sheet
- cognizance order
- appeal dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6765 of 2026
Saurabh Teotia
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anil Kumar Dubey, Chandra Bhan
Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Hari Shanker Srivastava, Nikhil
Srivastava
Court No. - 90
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for
opposite party no. 2.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned charge sheet dated
27.04.2026 as well as the cognizance order dated 29.05.2026 passed in Case
No. 754 of 2026 (State v. Saurabh Teotia), arising out of Case Crime No.
720 of 2025, under Sections 78, 69, and 351(2) B.N.S., and Section 3(2)(v)
of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
3. The complainant has stated that she was about 17 years old in the year
2017, when the appellant met her, allured her with a promise of marriage,
and established a physical relationship with her.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the victim was a
consenting party and her age, as determined by medical examination, is 24
years. He further submitted that an amount of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs was also
transferred into her account, and no offence is made out against the appellant
since the victim was a consenting party. It was also submitted that the
appellant had prepared photographs and videos of the victim and made them
viral, after which an F.I.R. was lodged and subsequently a charge sheet was
filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment in Naim
Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 15 SCC 385, contending that
proceedings involving a consensual sexual relationship were quashed in that
case. However, that judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
CRLA No. 6765 of 2026
2
in an appeal arising out of a final judgment passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, after the adduction and complete
appreciation of evidence.
6. At this stage, detailed appreciation of facts and evidence is not warranted,
and the ratio of the cited judgment is not applicable to the case at hand to
form a prima facie view before this Court.
7. The two basic questions of fact are whether the victim was a minor at the
time of the alleged offence in the year 2017, and whether she was a
consenting party. These are matters of evidence to be evaluated during trial.
At this stage, it is not proper or justifiable to appreciate the evidence in
detail.
8. There is no legal force in the appeal, it is liable to be dismissed and is
dismissed accordingly.
September 29, 2026
K.K. Maurya
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…