ABHISHEK CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
               CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7938 of 2025

Abhishek Chaudhary
                                                     …..Revisionist(s)

                                Versus

State of U.P. and another
                                                 …..Opposite Party(s)


Counsel for Revisionist(s)       : Om Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)    : G.A., Shravan Kumar        Pandey,
                                   Shyam Narain Pandey


In Chamber
                                             Reserved on 13.02.2026
                                             Delivered on 18.03.2026

            HON'BLE MRS. GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

1. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been filed.
Pleadings are complete.

2. Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel, holding brief
of Mr. Om Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist,
learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr.
Shravan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no.2.

3. The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the order
dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge/Fast Track Court, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 184 of 2025
arising out of Case Crime No. 228 of 2024 under Sections 376 and
506 I.P.C., Police Station Babupurva, District Kanpur Nagar
                                   2
                                                 CRLR No. - 7938 of 2025

whereby the discharge application moved by the revisionist under
Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

4. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged by the
prosecutrix on 13.08.2024 alleging therein that she had met the
revisionist at Care Hospital, Chakeri where the revisionist was
working. According to the F.I.R., the revisionist had developed
relations with her on the promise of marriage. It has been alleged
that the revisionist had introduced her to his parents and family
members and their relationship continued for about three years. It is
further alleged that the revisionist induced the prosecutrix to enter
into physical relations on the assurance that he would marry her and
had also taken jewellery and money from her. According to the
F.I.R., the revisionist thereafter refused to marry the prosecutrix and
told her that he would marry some other girl. It has further been
alleged that on 30.05.2024 the revisionist had taken the prosecutrix
to Welcome Hotel near Jhakarkati Bridge where he tried to kill her
by strangulating her from which she escaped and thereafter
threatened her that she would not get justice anywhere.

5. Pursuant to the said F.I.R., the prosecutrix was medically
examined at Dufferin Hospital, Kanpur and her statement was
recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. wherein she reiterated the
allegations made in the F.I.R. During investigation the statements of
three persons connected with Welcome Hotel were also recorded
under Section 180 B.N.S.S. The Investigating Officer thereafter
submitted charge-sheet dated 29.09.2024 under Sections 376 and
506 I.P.C. and cognizance was taken by the concerned Magistrate
on 12.11.2024. The revisionist thereafter moved an application for
discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. on 03.04.2025 stating that no
case under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C. is made out against him. The
said application has been rejected by the learned Additional
                                  3
                                                CRLR No. - 7938 of 2025

Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 which has
been assailed in the present revision.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the entire case is
false and has been instituted with mala fide intentions. It is
submitted that the revisionist is working as ICU Incharge at
Country Hospital, Koyala Nagar, Kanpur Nagar where the sister of
the prosecutrix was working. The prosecutrix used to visit the said
hospital and she had introduced herself as a medical representative
working for Astha Medical and had developed acquaintance with
the revisionist. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecutrix
had requested an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the revisionist stating
that she was being blackmailed by someone and the revisionist had
given her the said amount since her sister was also working in the
same hospital. It is submitted that the said amount was never
returned and when the revisionist demanded the money back, the
prosecutrix and her sister began threatening him.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecutrix belongs to
the Muslim religion whereas the revisionist belongs to the Hindu
religion. It is submitted that when the prosecutrix started asking for
marriage, the revisionist clearly expressed his inability to marry the
prosecutrix on account of religious differences. It has been
submitted that the prosecutrix insisted that the revisionist should
convert his religion and perform Nikah with her, which the
revisionist refused. It is submitted that thereafter relations between
the parties became strained and the prosecutrix started threatening
the revisionist that she would implicate him in a criminal case.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist
had submitted a written complaint dated 02.08.2024 before the
Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar informing the authorities
about the threats being extended by the prosecutrix and her sister. It
                                    4
                                                 CRLR No. - 7938 of 2025

is submitted that only after coming to know about the said
complaint, the prosecutrix lodged the present F.I.R. on 13.08.2024
and therefore the F.I.R. is nothing but a counterblast to the
complaint made by the revisionist.

9. Learned counsel further submits that the incident alleged in the
F.I.R. is stated to have taken place on 30.05.2024 whereas the F.I.R.
has been lodged on 13.08.2024 and there is an unexplained delay of
more than two months in lodging the F.I.R. It is submitted that such
delay casts serious doubt upon the prosecution story.

10. Learned counsel has further drawn attention of the Court to the
statements of the Manager of Welcome Hotel namely Avinash
Kumar and the owner of the hotel namely Utsav Gupta recorded
during investigation. It is submitted that both these witnesses have
clearly stated that the revisionist had not visited the hotel on
30.05.2024 which is the date on which the alleged incident is said to
have taken place. The entry register of the hotel has also been
produced during investigation which does not show the presence of
the revisionist in the hotel on the said date.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further referred to the
medico legal case report dated 14.08.2024 wherein the prosecutrix
herself has stated that she had been in a relationship with the
revisionist for the past three years and had physical relations with
him on the basis of promise of marriage. It has been submitted that
the medical report does not reveal any injury on the body of the
prosecutrix nor does it indicate any evidence of recent sexual
activity.

12. Learned counsel further submits that the Call Detail Records
available in the case diary show that the prosecutrix was present at
Kidwai Nagar which is about five kilometres away from the
                                   5
                                                 CRLR No. - 7938 of 2025

Welcome Hotel and therefore the allegation that she was present in
the said hotel on the date of the alleged incident is not supported by
the material on record.

13. Learned counsel therefore submits that even if the entire
material collected during investigation is taken on its face value, the
same does not disclose the commission of any offence under
Sections 376 or 506 I.P.C. and the learned trial court has erred in
rejecting the discharge application of the revisionist.

14. Learned counsel for the prosecutrix has opposed the revision
and submitted that the relationship between the parties was based
upon a promise of marriage and the prosecutrix had consented to
physical relations only on the assurance that the revisionist would
marry her. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 wherein it has been held that
consent obtained on a false promise of marriage amounts to consent
obtained under misconception of fact.

15. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the material brought on record.

16. At the stage of consideration of discharge under Section 227
Cr.P.C., the Court is required to examine whether the material
available on record gives rise to a grave suspicion against the
accused regarding the commission of the offence alleged. If the
material placed on record does not disclose the essential ingredients
of the offence alleged, the accused is entitled to be discharged.

17. In the present case it is admitted by the prosecutrix herself that
she had been in a relationship with the revisionist for nearly three
years and that the physical relations between them were consensual.
The allegation of rape in the present case is founded upon the
                                   6
                                                 CRLR No. - 7938 of 2025

allegation that the revisionist had made a promise to marry the
prosecutrix.

18. The Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra) has
held that in order to constitute rape on the basis of a promise to
marry it must be shown that the promise was false from the very
beginning and was made only with the intention of inducing the
prosecutrix to enter into a sexual relationship. Recently, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 741 has reiterated that a consensual
relationship between two adults, where a possibility of marriage
may exist, cannot be construed as a false pretext to marry merely
because the relationship subsequently breaks down. The Court has
observed that criminal law cannot be used to convert every failed
relationship into an offence of rape unless it is shown that the
promise to marry was false from the inception and was made solely
to exploit the prosecutrix.

19. The material available on record in the present case does not
prima facie indicate that the alleged promise was false from the
inception. On the contrary, the material on record indicates that the
parties were involved in a long standing relationship extending over
a period of three years and the dispute between them appears to
have arisen subsequently.

20. The record further indicates that the prosecutrix belongs to the
Muslim religion whereas the revisionist belongs to the Hindu
religion and the revisionist had expressed his inability to marry the
prosecutrix on account of religious differences. It has also come on
record that the prosecutrix had insisted that the revisionist should
convert his religion and perform Nikah with her which the
revisionist    refused.   Such   circumstances   indicate    that   the
disagreement between the parties arose subsequently on account of
                                     7
                                                 CRLR No. - 7938 of 2025

differences relating to marriage and religious conversion and cannot
prima facie lead to an inference that the revisionist had made a false
promise of marriage from the very inception of the relationship.

21. It is also significant that the revisionist had submitted a written
complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar on
02.08.2024 regarding the threats being extended by the prosecutrix
and the present F.I.R. has been lodged thereafter on 13.08.2024.
This circumstance lends support to the contention of the revisionist
that the F.I.R. may have been lodged as a counterblast to the
complaint made by him.

22. Apart from the allegation relating to promise of marriage, the
prosecutrix has also alleged that the revisionist had taken her to
Welcome Hotel on 30.05.2024 and attempted to kill her by
strangulation. However, the statements of the Manager and the
Owner of the Welcome Hotel recorded during investigation do not
support the presence of the revisionist in the hotel on the said date.
The entry register of the hotel also does not contain any entry
showing the presence of the revisionist on 30.05.2024.

23. The medical report of the prosecutrix does not reveal any injury
on her body nor does it show any evidence of recent sexual activity.
The Call Detail Records relied upon by the revisionist also indicate
that the prosecutrix was located at Kidwai Nagar which is about
five kilometres away from the Welcome Hotel at the relevant time.

24. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, even if the entire
material collected during investigation is accepted at its face value,
the same does not disclose the essential ingredients of offences
under Sections 376 or 506 I.P.C. The material available on record
does not give rise to a grave suspicion against the revisionist so as
to justify the framing of charges.
                                                              8
                                                                            CRLR No. - 7938 of 2025

                            25. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the
                            discharge application has failed to properly appreciate the material
                            available on record and has mechanically proceeded to reject the
                            application without considering the legal principles governing cases
                            of alleged rape on the basis of promise to marry.

                            26. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation
                            of the criminal proceedings against the revisionist would amount to
                            misuse of the criminal process and unnecessary harassment of the
                            accused.

                            27. The criminal revision is accordingly allowed. The order dated
                            11.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast
                            Track Court, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 184 of 2025 rejecting the
                            discharge application of the revisionist is hereby set aside. The
                            application filed by the revisionist under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is
                            allowed and the revisionist is discharged from offences under
                            Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C. in Case Crime No. 228 of 2024, Police
                            Station Babupurva, District Kanpur Nagar.




                                                                            (Garima Prashad,J.)

                            March 18, 2026
                            Sachin Mishra




Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad