Allahabad High Court
AJAY KUMAR MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
Since the question of consent is a factual issue to be decided by the trial court and no prima facie finding of consent exists, the order rejecting the discharge application and framing charges is lawful.
Summary
The appellant Ajay Kumar Mishra filed a criminal revision challenging the Additional District & Sessions Judge’s order that rejected his discharge application and framed charges under Sections 376, 366 and 506 of the IPC. The appellant contended that the alleged victim was a consenting adult, citing her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC and a medical ossification test. The High Court held that the issue of consent is a factual matter for the trial court to determine after hearing the prosecution evidence, and that no prima facie finding of consent existed at the revision stage. Consequently, the court found no illegality or irregularity in the lower court’s orders. The revision was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge application and framing charges despite the appellant’s claim of the victim’s consent.
- Whether the question of consent can be decided at the revision stage.
- Whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 366, 376, 506
Subjects
- criminal revision
- consent
- rape
- kidnapping
- criminal intimidation
- discharge application
- charge framing
- IPC
- CrPC
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1390 of 2026
Ajay Kumar Mishra
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rajrshi Gupta, Utkarsh Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated
23.01.2026 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions
Judge/F.T.C.-II, Deoria, in Sessions Trial No. 705 of 2025 (State vs. Ajay
Kumar Mishra), arising out of Case Crime No. 1248 of 2011, Police Station
Kotwali, District Deoria, under Sections 376, 366, and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code. The revision has also been filed against the order dated
23.01.2026 by which charges have been framed against the
revisionist/applicant under Sections 376, 366, and 506 I.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that Case Crime No. 1248 of
2011 was registered under Section 366 I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali,
District Deoria. The allegations have been levelled against the revisionist,
Ajay Kumar Mishra, who is stated to be the Principal.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the statements of the
victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has stated
that she is major, aged about 23 years. As per the medical ossification test,
she appears to be about 21 years of age; in either case, she is major and a
consenting party. It is further submitted that she consistently resided with the
revisionist for about two months and travelled with him from Gorakhpur to
Delhi, then to Goa, thereafter to Gorakhpur, and subsequently to Varanasi.
5. After detailed investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the
revisionist under Sections 376, 366, and 506 I.P.C. A discharge application
CRLR No. 1390 of 2026
2
was filed by the revisionist before the learned trial court, which was rejected
vide order dated 23.01.2026. Thereafter, charges were also framed on the
same date under Sections 376, 366, and 506 I.P.C.
6. The question of consent is a question of fact which is to be decided by the
learned trial court after recording the evidence of the prosecution. The
allegations levelled are serious and heinous in nature. At this stage, when the
discharge application has already been rejected and charges have been
framed, no prima facie finding on the factual issue of consent can justifiably
be recorded.
7. In view of the aforesaid, there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in
the impugned orders.
8. The criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
February 24, 2026
K.K. Maurya
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…