POOJA CHATURVEDIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6976 of 2026

Pooja Chaturvedi
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)        : Sanjay Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : G.A., Kuldeep Kumar, Om Ji Singh,
                                  Santosh Singh

Court No. - 90
                     HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

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

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the cognizance order
dated 06.04.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur
Nagar, as well as the charge-sheet dated 10.12.2025 in Sessions
Trial/Sessions Case No. 690 of 2026 (State v. Pooja Chaturvedi and others),
arising out of Case Crime No. 357 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 351(2),
352, and 118(1) of the BNS and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(da), and 3(1)(dha) of
the SC/ST Act, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the FIR was
registered as Case Crime No. 357 of 2025 on 16.10.2025 at 19:40 hours
under Sections 3(1)(gha), 3(1)(da), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and
Sections 118(1), 352, 351(2), 115(2), and 308(2) of the BNS. The
complainant, Govind Diwakar, lodged the present FIR against (1) Pooja
Chaturvedi, (2) Patrakar Baba, and (3) Vandana Sachan. It has been stated in
the complaint that the complainant was caught in a honeytrap by the
appellant (Pooja Chaturvedi) for the purpose of extorting money.

4. The complainant stated that he met the accused/appellant about one and a
half years ago in Jhansi. She stated that she was unmarried and started
meeting with the complainant. The complainant came to know in April 2025
that the said lady was a divorcee, having already extorted an amount of Rs.
14 Lakhs from her former husband. After the said divorce, the lady further
engaged with two other persons, extracted money from them, and
completely closed relations with them. Hence, the complainant began
keeping his distance from her. Even thereafter, the accused filed a false and
                                                          CRLA No. 6976 of 2026
                                 2

fabricated complaint at Police Station Kotwali, Jhansi. The complainant
disclosed all the true facts to the concerned police at Kotwali, Jhansi.
Subsequently, the accused/appellant visited the residence of the complainant
in Kanpur, threatened that she would implicate all his family members in a
false case, and demanded an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs from him.

5. Due to the entire situation, the family members withdrew their support
from the complainant. Even thereafter, on 28.08.2025, the appellant/accused
engaged in an altercation and hurled abuses at the complainant's mother and
sister at his house in Kachchi Basti, in front of Jain Mandir, Gujaini A-
Block, Police Station Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The family members of
the complainant complained about the incident on the IGRS portal, but the
police did not initiate any action. Thereafter, on 29.09.2025, the appellant, in
collusion with local journalist Baba and one Vandana Sachan, again engaged
in an altercation with the parents of the complainant and bit the hand of the
complainant's mother. She further made an illegal demand of Rs. 1 Lakh,
made casteist remarks, and humiliated him. A complaint regarding this
incident was filed by the family members of the complainant on 08.10.2025.
Late in the night on 06.10.2025, the appellant/accused further sent
WhatsApp messages through an acquaintance, Raj Singh Thapa. As the
appellant's illegal demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs was not met, she threatened to
falsely implicate all members of the family in a false and fabricated case.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant/accused
filed FIR No. 296 of 2025 on 24.10.2025 at Police Station Barra,
Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar. The said FIR was lodged against the
complainant, Govind Diwakar, and Jyoti Kushwaha under Sections
64(2)(m), 115(2), 351(3), and 89 of the BNS, 2023. Learned counsel for the
appellant has further submitted that she recorded her statement under Section
183 of the BNSS during the investigation of that case.

7. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 / first informant has submitted to
this Court that in FIR No. 296 of 2025 filed by the appellant/Pooja
Chaturvedi, no offence was found, and a final report was submitted by the
Investigating Officer (I.O.). Whereas, it has been submitted on behalf of the
appellant that her protest petition is pending in the said case, and the matter
remains sub judice.

8. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that this is a case
of a honeytrap where he was fraudulently trapped by the appellant,
prompting him to file the FIR. A charge-sheet was filed against her after
completing the investigation, and the trial court has issued summons to the
appellant.
                                                                                              CRLA No. 6976 of 2026
                                                                    3

                                    9. There is substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for
                                    opposite party no. 2. The FIR was lodged detailing a complete background,
                                    and after completing the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed.
                                    Cognizance has been taken by the learned trial court, and summonses have
                                    been issued to the appellant. On the contrary, regarding the FIR filed by the
                                    appellant as Case Crime No. 296 of 2025, no offence was found during the
                                    investigation, and a final report was submitted; although a protest petition is
                                    pending, that remains subject to judicial determination following the
                                    principles of natural justice.

                                    10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there is
                                    neither any illegality nor any irregularity in the impugned order dated
                                    06.04.2026.

                                    11. The criminal appeal lacks legal force and is liable to be dismissed; it is
                                    accordingly dismissed.

                                    September 29, 2026
                                    K.K. Maurya
                                                                                               (Abdul Shahid,J.)




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