Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Allahabad, Single Bench of Justice Avnish Saxena today declined to interfere with criminal proceedings arising from a complaint by a student against her teacher, refusing to quash the charge sheet, the magistrate’s cognizance order and the ensuing trial. The woman alleged that the accused kept her in a relationship for about eleven years and repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her on an assurance of marriage, besides assaulting and threatening her. The Court noted that, on a prima facie reading, the accused was already married when the relationship began and, therefore, any promise to marry could amount to “deceitful means” contemplated by Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. Finding the allegations and material sufficient to proceed to trial, the Court dismissed the quashing plea.

The matter arose from an application filed by the accused seeking quashing of a charge sheet, cognizance order, and criminal proceedings relating to allegations of sexual intercourse by deceitful means, voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult, and criminal intimidation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Also Read: Personal Liability Must Be Determined Before Executing NCDRC Decree Against Builder’s Directors/Promoters: Supreme Court

The prosecution case was initiated on the basis of an FIR lodged by a woman alleging that she had been in a relationship with the accused for about eleven years, during which period sexual relations were established on repeated assurances of marriage. It was alleged that the accused was already married, a fact purportedly concealed from her, and that she was subjected to physical assault, intimidation, and threats of defamation.

Statements of the informant were recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, wherein she reiterated allegations of sexual relations induced by false promises, physical violence, and subsequent refusal to marry. A charge sheet was thereafter submitted invoking Sections 69, 115(2), 352, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The accused contended that the relationship was consensual, long-standing, and known to the complainant, relying upon prior complaints, alleged compromises, and departmental enquiry material to assert abuse of process. The State and the informant opposed the plea, asserting deception from inception and disputing the genuineness of prior compromises.

The Court first delineated the scope of scrutiny at the stage of quashing and framed the central issue by recording that “the point of concern in the present application is whether prima facie the allegations levelled by the victim on the applicant accused is sufficient to proceed with the trial or continuance of the trial would amount to gross abuse of process of law.”

Upon examining the FIR and accompanying material, the Court observed that “the facts alleged in the F.I.R. and the material available on record on the face of it reveals the prima facie facts that the victim is residing in the house of accused-applicant and was in relationship with the accused-applicant since last 11 years.” It further noted that “the sexual intercourse for the first time was the result of unconsciousness of victim and subsequently, on false promise of marriage.”

The Court took note of the conflicting material regarding the complainant’s knowledge of the accused’s marital status, observing that “it is the contention of the victim that she came to know about marriage of applicant only after lodging of the F.I.R.” At the same time, it referred to the departmental enquiry report relied upon by the accused, recording that it “shows the statement of opposite party no. 2, wherein she is admittedly aware about the marriage of applicant and therefore, she has entered into compromise,” while also noting that the same was disputed and not part of the case diary.

While considering the applicability of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Court stated that “sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means and false promise of marriage” is expressly punishable, and that “prior to the enactment the courts interpret the conduct of parties in view of the provisions of Section 375 I.P.C. coupled with the provision of Section 90 I.P.C.”

The Court further recorded that “it is an admitted fact that the accused-applicant was already married when he came in contact with opposite party no. 2,” and held that whether the complainant was aware of this fact was “a matter of trial to decipher from evidence.”

Concluding on the scope of interference, the Court observed that “on the basis of prima facie facts, this Court does not find sufficient ground to quash the charge sheet and the proceedings.”

Also Read: Rohingya Funding Syndicate | Anticipatory Bail Denied To Alleged Kingpin; Allahabad HC Slams Investigating Agency Over Callous Approach

The Court issued its final direction by recording that “the application moved under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.  The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Applicant: Mrityunjay Dwivedi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Akanksha Gaur, Government Advocate; Raj Baran, A.G.A.

Case Title: Kuldeep Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Neutral Citation: 2026: AHC:7718
Case Number: Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 35779 of 2025
Bench: Justice Avnish Saxena