Brijendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2345 of 2025

Applicant :- Brijendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

Present application has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. with following main prayer:-

¶7

" Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that impugned order, dated 07.08.2024 passed by the learned court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTC-2, Lucknow in Session Trial No. 943/2024 (State v. Brijendra Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 486/2022, under Section 376, 313, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow whereby discharge application of the applicant has been dismissed, and the consequential proceedings, may kindly be quashed/set aside."

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case by the respondent no. 2 by lodging an FIR under Sections 376, 313 and 506 IPC by making allegations that the applicant on the false promise of marriage had outraged her modesty and when she exerted pressure to solemnize marriage with her within fifteen days, the applicant has refused to solemnize the marriage with respondent no. 2.

¶9

It is further submitted that the allegation made, as mentioned above, in the FIR is totally incorrect for the reason that in the FIR, the complainant herself alleged that the applicant had said that he will marry her only when she got divorce from her husband and till date even the petition for divorce has not been filed by the respondent no. 2 and without taking divorce, she is pressurizing the applicant to get married with him.

¶10

It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2, who is a major, married and a mother of a child and without filing the divorce petition, is pressurizing the applicant to solemnize the marriage and when he refused to tie the knot with her within fifteen days, she lodged the present FIR against the applicant, hence, it

¶11

cannot be said that the respondent no. 2 on the assurance, inducement and false promise of marriage, she agreed to have sexual intercourse with the applicant, hence, the allegations made are unfounded and the criminal proceeding pending against the applicant are liable to be quashed. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the judgment dated 24.03.2017 rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohit Nagar Vs. State and another (Criminal Micl. Case No. 2454/2016). Relevant paras of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶12

"9. The whole basis of FIR No. 135/2016 registered against the petitioner by the respondent No.2 is that on 8' December, 2015 they interacted at shadi.com and where after they met each other at Defence Colony market and the petitioner proposed to marry her and insisted on getting physically involved with her. It is the case of respondent No.2 that on the assurance, inducement and promise of marriage she agreed to have sexual intercourse with him. Admittedly, the marriage of respondent No.2 with Naveen had not been dissolved by decree of divorce nor was it declared a nullity when the alleged offence took place from December 2015 till 3d April, 2016 where after the respondent No.2 lodged the above-noted FIR on 6h April, 2016. When respondent no. 2 could not have lawfully married the petitioner on 3rd April, 2016 her allegations that the petitioner played fraud on her in receiving her consent for marriage are unfounded. Thus, even taking the allegations on the face of it on the basis of documents of impeccable character in the form of FIR No. 138/2015 lodged at New Ashok Nagar and order dated 9th March, 2016 passed in (HMA No. 244/16) the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC are not made out.

¶13

The stand of respondent No.2 in the present petition is that after grant of bail, the petitioner refused to marry her. This cannot be ground to reject the petition filed by the petitioner if on undisputed facts and material collected during investigation, no case is made out against the petitioner to proceed further in the charge-sheet filed. Applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar (supra) it is a fit case where the FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto are liable to be quashed to prevent the misuse of the criminal justice system and also to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. "

¶14

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the case but unable to dispute the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

Instant matter requires consideration.

¶16

Let notice be issued to the respondent no. 2

¶17

Steps be taken within a week.

¶18

List this case in the week commencing 19.05.2025, as fresh.

¶19

Office is directed to submit service report by the next date of listing.

¶20

Till the next date of listing, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 943 of 2024 (State Vs. Brijendra Kumar) shall remain stayed, as far as it is related with the present applicant.

¶21

Order Date :- 9.4.2025/Ashish

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Brijendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepak Kapoor and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Sarla Devi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Lko and Another

Hanuman Prasad Verma and Another vs Shri Manoj Kumar Sonkar Conservator of Forest Devi Patan Circle U.P. Gonda

Anil Kumar Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Gaya Prasad Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Shyam Sunder Rai, Thru. His Daughter Anchal Rai vs Shri Sanjay Prasad Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.