SACHIN KUMAR AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4189 of 2025

Sachin Kumar And 3 Others
                                                             .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)               :   Mohd. Afzal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)            :   G.A., Manisha Chaturvedi

Court No. - 87
                     HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State
and Ms. Manisha Chaturvedi on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists against the
impugned order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act)-1, Ghaziabad, in Session
Trial No. 256 of 2025 (State vs. Sachin Kumar) under Sections 376 and 506
I.P.C., Police Station Ankur Vihar, District Ghaziabad, arising out of Case
Crime No. 369 of 2024.

3. The genesis of the case is that the alleged offence is stated to have
occurred on 03.07.2019. The F.I.R. was lodged on 03.10.2024 under
Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C. by opposite party no. 2/complainant/victim
against three named persons, namely: (1) Sachin Kumar, (2) the brother-in-
law (Jeeja) of Sachin Kumar, and (3) Sangeeta.

4. It is alleged that a boy named Sachin, son of Preetam Singh, has been
known to the victim since her college days. They have been residing
together since 2016. The victim has alleged that Sachin, on the false promise
of marriage, established a physical relationship with her since 2019. It is
further alleged that he was selected as a Sub-Inspector in U.P. Police in the
year 2023. Thereafter, whenever the victim requested him to marry her, he
used to assure her that he would marry her after some time on one pretext or
another. However, when she again requested him to marry her, he refused. It
is further alleged that he lastly established physical relations with her on
27.07.2024 at Prima Hotel.
                                                           CRLR No. 4189 of 2025
                                 2


5. It is further alleged that when the family members of the victim attempted
to talk to him, his brother-in-law and sister Sangeeta threatened the victim
with money and even death. The victim, therefore, requested that a case
under serious sections be registered against the said boy, his brother-in-law,
and his sister, and that legal action be taken against them.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that there was no false
promise of marriage. Both the parties are major and were in a consensual
relationship. They had been residing with each other since 2016. It is further
submitted that the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on
03.07.2019, whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged in the year 2024. It is alleged
that when the accused refused to marry the victim, opposite party no. 2
lodged the F.I.R. on the ground of a false promise of marriage. It is
submitted that no offence has been committed by the revisionists. Learned
counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the medical examination report
of the victim dated 03.10.2024 of Joint Hospital, Loni, Ghaziabad, wherein
she refused to undergo medical examination.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further relied upon the statement
of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., wherein she stated that
Sachin had been studying with her in college since 2016. They became
friends, and he established physical relations with her on the false promise of
marriage since 2019. It was further stated that after he got a job as U.P. Sub-
Inspector, he continued to establish physical relations with her and also
provided her with birth control pills, but later refused to marry
her. Thereafter, the supplementary statement of the victim was recorded,
wherein she stated that she had known Sachin since 2015 and he had
sexually exploited her since 2016. She further stated that after he got a job in
the U.P. Police in the year 2023, he committed rape with her four more
times. She also stated that he called her to Lucknow on 23.09.2024 and
refused to marry her. In the supplementary statement, she further added that
thereafter his brother-in-law Surendra Kumar, who works in the Railways,
his sister Sangeeta, who works in the Delhi Police, Sachin's mother Sumitra,
and his maternal uncle's son Pappu came to her house and threatened to kill
her and attempted to influence her by offering money.

8. In her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she further stated that she
has known Sachin since 2016 and has been in a relationship with him since
2019. She stated that he made a false promise of marriage to her, due to
                                                           CRLR No. 4189 of 2025
                                 3


which they had physical relations several times. She further stated that both
of them were preparing for competitive examinations and therefore did not
disclose this relationship to their families. She further stated that the last
physical relationship took place on 27.07.2024, after which Sachin told her
that he did not want to continue the relationship. She also stated that Sachin's
family members came and threatened her. She further alleged that Sachin's
sister, who is working in the Delhi Police, threatened her over the phone and
pressured her to remove Sachin's name from the F.I.R. and accept money in
exchange for remaining silent. She further stated that Sachin was selected in
the year 2023 and is posted at Lucknow. She also went there. He allegedly
took her phone and deleted all their chats, messages, and photographs and
created undue pressure upon her.

9. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.
Accused Sachin has been charge-sheeted under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C.,
and accused Sumitra, Sangeeta, and Surendra have been charge-sheeted
under Section 506 I.P.C.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists
have not committed any offence and are entitled to be discharged. It is
submitted that no offence has been committed by the revisionists. The
relationship between the victim and revisionist no. 1, Sachin, was
consensual. Both were major at the relevant time and, therefore, no offence
has been committed by him.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
while deciding a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., explained the concept
of "consent" in relation to Section 375 I.P.C.

12. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further relied upon the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naim Ahamed vs. State (NCT of
Delhi), Reportable Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2023, decided on
30.01.2023. In the said case, the criminal appeal was decided where the
appellant Naim had been convicted. However, in the present matter, the
discharge application has been rejected and the criminal revision is to be
considered only on the point of illegality or perversity in the impugned
order, keeping in view the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. Hence the
revisionists are not entitled to get the benefit of Pramod (supra) and Naim
                                                          CRLR No. 4189 of 2025
                                 4


(supra).

13. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further relied upon the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lallu Yadav vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others, 2024 INSC 782, wherein the matter is related with
criminal writ petition and under section 482 Cr.P.C.

14. Learned counsel for the revisionists has also relied upon the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maheshwar Tigga vs. State of
Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108, wherein the appeal against conviction was
decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, in the present matter, the
revision is to be decided only on the limited question of illegality, material
irregularity, or perversity in the impugned order, on the question of
discharge.

15. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the discharge
application has been rightly rejected by the learned trial court. Learned
counsel for opposite party no. 2 has relied upon paragraph 9 of the impugned
order, wherein it has been observed that at the stage of framing of charges,
meticulous appreciation of the evidence is not required. It has further been
submitted that the victim has stated that there were consistent physical
relations between the parties for the last 3–4 years on the promise of
marriage. Whether the promise of marriage was actually made or not, and
whether it was the sole reason for the intimate relationship, are matters
which can only be determined after completion of the evidence and its
appreciation during trial. The question of consent, whether the act was
against her will, without her consent, or with her consent, are material
questions of fact which can only be decided after appreciation of the
evidence. The basic question, in an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is
whether the act was against her will, without her consent, with her consent,
or when she was unable to give consent. These are questions of fact which
are required to be adjudicated during the trial.

16. After a detailed investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against the
revisionists. There are serious allegations made by the complainant/victim
against the revisionists. The question of consent, the alleged false promise of
marriage, or whether the relationship was consensual are matters which can
only be finally determined after the collection and appreciation of the
evidence. A meticulous examination of the merits of the case at this stage is
neither appropriate nor justifiable.
                                                             CRLR No. 4189 of 2025
                                  5


17. In the present case, the F.I.R. has been lodged under sections 376 and
506 I.P.C. against the revisionist no. 1/Sachin Kumar who is the main
accused and against Sangeeta and brother-in-law of Sachin Kumar. Sachin
Kumar and victim/opposite party no. 2 were having relationship with each
other since 2019. Whereas, they were known to each other since their
college time from the year 2016. According to the allegations, on the
assurance of the marriage, Sachin Kumar has consistently committed rape
with her and sexually exploited to her but ultimately refused to marry.
Whereas, she has not made any allegation in the F.I.R. against the revisionist
no. 2 (Smt. Sumitra) who is the mother of Sachin Kumar in the said F.I.R.

18. The said F.I.R. was lodged on 03.10.2024, whereas the victim had
known revisionist no. 1, Sachin Kumar, since 2016, and they had been in a
physical relationship since 2019. Even on the date of lodging of the F.I.R.,
she did not know the name of Sachin's brother-in-law and merely referred to
him as the brother-in-law of Sachin. The main allegation made by the
complainant/opposite party no. 2 is against Sachin Kumar. There is no
allegation in the F.I.R. against revisionist no. 2, Sumitra, who is the mother
of revisionist no. 1, Sachin Kumar. The allegations against the remaining
two accused persons are also vague in nature, as no specific date or time has
been disclosed regarding the alleged threats extended to her. The victim is
neither illiterate nor uneducated; rather, she is a literate and educated lady
and a resident of the metropolitan city of Ghaziabad.

19. In her supplementary statement, she further stated that thereafter Sachin's
brother-in-law Surendra Kumar, who works in the Railways, his sister
Sangeeta, who works in the Delhi Police, Sachin's mother Sumitra, and his
maternal uncle's son Pappu came to her house, threatened to kill her, and
attempted to influence her by offering money. However, even in her
supplementary statement, she did not disclose any specific date, time, or
place when such threats were allegedly extended to her. Even after detailed
investigation, the charge sheet has been filed only under Section 506 I.P.C.
against revisionist nos. 2, 3 and 4. There appears to be inconsistency and
improvement in the statements of the victim/opposite party no. 2 from the
time of lodging of the F.I.R. till the filing of the charge sheet against the
revisionists. Her statements regarding the allegations against revisionist nos.
2, 3 and 4 lack consistency and specificity.

20.   The   material   dispute,   if   any,   appears   to    be   between    the
                                                           CRLR No. 4189 of 2025
                                 6


complainant/opposite party no. 2 and revisionist no. 1, Sachin Kumar. The
other accused persons are family members of Sachin Kumar, who appear to
have been implicated in the present offence without any substantial or
corroborative evidence. There is no mention of any specific date or time
when they allegedly threatened her or intimidated her with threats to her life.
Evidence of such nature does not appear to be available on record against
revisionist nos. 2, 3 and 4. The learned trial court has discussed in detail the
role of revisionist no. 1, Sachin Kumar, in the alleged offence; however, no
substantial findings have been recorded while rejecting the discharge
applications of revisionist nos. 2, 3 and 4.

21. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and
another; 2022 (5) SCC 720 by Three Judges Bench,(Authored by Hon.
Surya Kant, J) held as under:-

     "12. At the outset, we may note that the High Court has dismissed
     the Criminal Revision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction under
     section 397 of Cr.P.C. The High Court did not examine the issue
     in detail to find out whether the continuation of proceedings will
     amount to abuse of process of law in this case. The impugned
     order cites the decision of this Court in Asian Resurfacing
     (supra) wherein it was noted as under:

     "Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not
     purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of
     the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a
     petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C.or Article 227 of
     the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised
     consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious
     disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner
     hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge
     should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a
     patent error of jurisdiction and not to re- appreciate the matter."

     13. It appears to us that while limiting the scope of a criminal
     revision to jurisdictional errors alone, the High Court apparently
     underappreciated the Judgment in Asian Resurfacing (supra). We
     say so at least for two reasons. First, the material facts in the
     abovecited case dealt with a challenge to the charges framed
     under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("POCA"). The
                                                   CRLR No. 4189 of 2025
                          7


cited judgment itself enlightens that not only is POCA a special
legislation, but also contains a specific bar under Section 19
against routine exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Second, This
Court in Asian Resurfacing (Supra) while expressing concern
regarding the need to tackle rampant pendency and delays in our
criminal law system, followed the ratio laid down in an earlier
decision in Madhu Limaye V. State of Maharashtra as can be
seen from the following extract: "

27. Thus, even though in dealing with different situations,
seemingly conflicting observations may have been made while
holding that the order framing charge was interlocutory order
and was not liable to be interfered with under Section 397(2) or
even under Section 482 CrPC, the principle laid down in Madhu
Limaye [Madhu Limaye V. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC
551: 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] still holds the field. Order framing
charge may not be held to be purely an interlocutory order and
can in a given situation be interfered with under Section 397(2)
CrPC or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution which is a
constitutional provision but the power of the High Court to
interfere with an order framing charge and to grant stay is to be
exercised only in a exceptional situation."
14. In Madhu Limaye (supra), this Court authoritatively held:-
"9... Sometimes the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court has
also been resorted to for the same kind of relief by challenging
the order taking cognizance or issuing processes or framing
charge on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance and proceed with the trial, that the issuance of
process was wholly illegal or void, or that no charge could be
framed as no offence was made out on the allegations made or
the evidence adduced in Court.
10. ....Even assuming, although we shall presently show that it is
not so, that in such a case an order of the Court taking
cognizance or issuing processes is an interlocutory order, does it
stand to reason to say that inherent power of the High Court
cannot be exercises for stopping the criminal proceeding as early
as possible, instead of harassing the accused up to the end? The
answer is obvious that the bar will not operate to prevent the
                                                           CRLR No. 4189 of 2025
                                 8


     abuse of the process of the Court and/or to secure the ends of
     justice. The label of the petition filed by an aggrieved party is
     immaterial.
     15. The correct position of law as laid down in Madhu Limaye
     (supra), thus, is that orders framing charges or refusing
     discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are
     therefore not affected by the bar of Section 397 (2) of CrPC. That
     apart, this Court in the abovecited cases has unequivocally
     acknowledged that the High Court is imbued with inherent
     jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of
     justice having regard to the facts and circumstance of individual
     cases. As a caveat it may be stated that the High Court, while
     exercising its aforestated jurisdiction ought to be circumspect.
     The discretion vested in the High Court is to be invoked carefully
     and judiciously for effective and timely administration of criminal
     justice system. This Court, nonetheless, does not recommend a
     complete hands off approach. Albeit, there should be
     interference, may be, in exceptional cases, failing which there is
     likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen. For
     example, when the contents of a complaint or the other purported
     material on record is a brazen attempt to persecute an innocent
     person, it becomes imperative upon the Court to prevent the
     abuse of process of law.
     16. Further, it is well settled that the trial court while considering
     the discharge application is not to act as a mere post office. The
     Court has to sift through the evidence in order to find out
     whether there are sufficient grounds to try the suspect. The court
     has to consider the broad probabilities, total effect of evidence
     and documents produced and the basic infirmities appearing in
     the case and so on. [ Union of India V. Prafulla Kumar
     Samal].Likewise, the Court has sufficient discretion to order
     further investigation in appropriate cases, if need be. It is also
     held that discharge is a valuable right provided to the accused."

22. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Anand Rai Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and another; 2026 INSC 141. In paragraph no. 21 it held
as under:-

     "Before parting with the matter, it is observed that at the stage of
                                                                                              CRLR No. 4189 of 2025
                                                                    9


                                         framing of charge or considering discharge, the Court is not
                                         dealing with an abstract legal exercise. It is dealing with real
                                         people, real anxieties, and the real weight of criminal
                                         prosecution. Judicial responsibility at this stage calls for care,
                                         balance, and an honest engagement with the facts on record. The
                                         power to frame a charge is not meant to be exercise by default or
                                         out of caution alone. When the material placed before the Court,
                                         take at the face value, does not disclose the ingredients of an
                                         offence, the law expects the Court to have the clarity and courage
                                         to say so and to keep such a case aside."

                                    23. In view of the facts, reasons and circumstances mentioned hereinabove,
                                    revisionist nos. 2, 3 and 4 are entitled to be discharged and are hereby
                                    discharged. The impugned order dated 25.07.2025 is modified to that extent
                                    accordingly. However, the proceedings against revisionist no. 1, Sachin
                                    Kumar, shall continue and shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance
                                    with law.

                                    24. With these observations and findings, the revision is partly allowed
                                    accordingly.

                                    25. Ms. Manisha Chaturvedi has been appointed by the High Court Legal
                                    Services Committee in this case to represent the opposite party no. 2/victim.
                                    She shall be paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards her fees for assistance in this
                                    case.

                                    March 10, 2026
                                    K.K. Maurya
                                                                                               (Abdul Shahid,J.)




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