Allahabad High Court

DHARMVEER GAUTAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA

Holding

The court held that there was no illegality in framing the charge under Section 376(2)(N) IPC and dismissed the revision.

Summary

The revisionist, Dharmveer Gautam, filed a criminal revision seeking to quash the charge framed by the Additional Session Judge, FTC‑I (Crime Against Women) Jaunpur under Section 376(2)(N) IPC in a rape case allegedly occurring in Mumbai. He contended that the FIR and victim’s statement, recorded under Section 161 CrPC, did not substantiate the offence and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the alleged incident took place outside its territorial jurisdiction. The State, represented by the learned A.G.A., argued that the victim’s consent under the pretext of marriage was not free and that a prima facie case existed, justifying the charge. The High Court examined the FIR, the victim’s statement, and the charge‑framing order and found no illegality in the trial court’s action. It also held that the jurisdictional objection was not raised before the trial court and could be raised there, not in the revision. Consequently, the revision was dismissed and the charge stood.

Issues considered

Whether the Additional Session Judge erred in framing a charge under Section 376(2)(N) IPC without applying judicial mind.
Whether the trial court in Jaunpur had jurisdiction to try an offence alleged to have occurred in Mumbai.
Whether the charge framed against the revisionist should be quashed.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161
Indian Penal Code — s. 376(2)(N)

Subjects

rape
Section 376(2)(N) IPC
jurisdiction
criminal revision
charge framing
consent
marriage pretext

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5376 of 2025

Dharmveer Gautam
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sanjay Kumar Mishra, V.K. Baranwal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 86
HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material on record.

The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to quash/set aside
the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge, FTC-I
(Crime Against Women) Jaunpur in Session Trial No. 314 of 2024 (State vs.
Dharmveer) arising out of Case Crime No.128 of 2024, under Sections
376(2)(N) I.P.C., Police Station Khetasarai, District Jaunpur and to stay the
further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case incident
is said to have taken place in Mumbai regarding which an application was
given by the victim to senior police Inspector, Daharavi, Police Station
Thane, Dharavi, Mumbai which was transferred to District Jaunpur where
present F.I.R. was lodged as Case Crime No.128 of 2024, under Section 376,
376(2)(N) I.P.C. After investigation charge sheet was filed before the
learned court and cognizance of the offence was taken. Learned trial court
has framed the charge on 04.05.2024 under Section 376(2)(N) I.P.C. without
applying its judicial mind. From the facts as mentioned in the F.I.R. and also
in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. no offence u/s
376(2)(N) I.P.C. is made out even though learned trial court has framed the
charge. There is no any other statement in support of the allegations made by
the victim even though the charge has been framed. There is allegation that
the revisionist established physical relations with the victim and entered into
marriage though he was already a married person and there was no illicit
CRLR No. 5376 of 2025
2

relation between both of them. The revisionist is a personnel who works in
C.R.P.F. Further submitted that the learned trial court at District Jaunpur has
no jurisdiction to try the case since the incident took place in Mumbai,
therefore, the order passed by learned trial court dated 04.09.2024 framing
charge is illegal and is liable to be set aside and revision is to be allowed.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that from the
contents of F.I.R. and the statement of the victim as made u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
before the I.O., the allegation of establishing physical relations with the
victim under the pretext of marriage amounts to commission of offence of
rape. Under the pretext of marriage consent, if given by the victim cannot be
said to be free consent. At the stage of framing of charge only prima facie
case is to be seen.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of
record, the contents of F.I.R., the statement made by the victim as recorded
by the I.O. u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the order order dated 04.09.2026 passed by
the learned trial court by which charge has been framed u/s 376(2)(N) I.P.C.,
there appears no any illegality in framing the formal charge against the
revisionist, therefore, it does not require any interference by this Court.

So far as the question of jurisdiction of the learned trial court is concerned,
this plea has not been raised by the revisionist before the learned trial court,
therefore, he may take such a plea before the learned trial court which will
be decided in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of finally.

May 14, 2026
Ashok Gupta
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…