Disposed¶21

Pradeep Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2025CRLA/919/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

False promise of marriage; consensual physical relationship; prosecutrix married woman not legally divorced; Section 376 IPC consent; challenge to summoning order; Section 14A(1) SC/ST Act appeal; Section 156(3) CrPC complaint; police final report; direction to Superintendent of Police to probe collusion; admission-stage prima facie view; interim stay of Sessions Case No. 175 of 2024; Naim Ahmad 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89 relied on; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

Appeal admitted; notice to opposite party no. 2 (necessary steps within ten days); proceedings of Sessions Case No. 175 of 2024 - State Vs. Pradeep Verma stayed till the next date of listing (26.05.2025). ¶21

Pradeep Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 11.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar warrants interference in this criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

Considering the facts, specially that the prosecutrix was in a relationship with the appellant for a period of over seven years and was a married woman not having been legally divorced, it cannot be said that there was a false promise of marriage by the appellant; accordingly the matter requires consideration.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Alok Mathur, J.), 25.03.2025 — Criminal Appeal No. 919 of 2025 under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the summoning order dated 11.10.2024 of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Sessions Case No. 175 of 2024 (State v. Pradeep Verma), arising out of Case Crime No. 208 of 2024 under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)V of the SC/ST Act, PS Jalalpur. The complainant (respondent no. 2) alleged a physical relationship with the appellant since 2017 on a promise of marriage; on her Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. complaint an FIR was registered (07.06.2024), but police filed a final report; the trial court nonetheless summoned the appellant and directed the SP, Ambedkar Nagar to investigate whether the final report was filed in collusion with him. The appellant contended the prosecutrix was a major, married woman (separated only by affidavit, not legally divorced) who consented voluntarily, placing reliance on Naim Ahmad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89. The Court, noting the relationship subsisted for over seven years and the prosecutrix remained a married woman not legally divorced, held it could not be said there was a false promise of marriage. Appeal admitted; notice issued; further proceedings of the Sessions Case stayed until 26.05.2025.

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 919 of 2025

¶3

Appellant :- Pradeep Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vishva Nath Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vishva Nath Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶6

By means of present criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act has been filed assailing the summoning order dated 11.10.2024, passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Sessions Case No. 175 of 2024 - State Vs. Pradeep Verma, arising out of Case Crime No. 208 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Jalalpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that respondent no. 2 had preferred a complaint in the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ambedkar Nagar under Sections 376, 504, 506, 323 IPC, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., on which directions were issued for registration of first information report by means of order dated 07.06.2024. The Police conducted investigation and came to the conclusion that offences as alleged by the complainant were not made out and accordingly, filed the final report before the Court concerned.

¶8

The trial Court considered the final report filed by the Police and after considering the Police report, as passed the impugned order dated 11.10.2024, summoning the appellant who is accused in the said case and has also issued direction to the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar to investigate as to whether the final report was filed in collusion with the appellant.

¶9

Perusal of impugned order would indicate that in the complainant in her complaint had alleged that in 2017, she was residing in district Ayodhya and studying for BTC course and was also engaged in a coaching center. In the coaching center she met the appellant and they developed intimate relations and the appellant had also proposed to marry the complainant.

¶10

Subsequently, when the complainant/prosecutrix shifted to Allahabad, the appellant regularly met her at Allahabad and also indulged in physical relationship stating that he has already agreed to marry the complaint/prosecutrix. It is stated that the said relationship continued and subsequently, the appellant had got Government job in the customs department and when the complaint asked him to marry her, he refused and at which stage in 2024, the complainant/prosecutrix preferred the complaint under Section 376, 504, 506 IPC.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even the trial Court has considered the fact that the prosecutrix/complainant is a married woman with one Raj Kumar and they have divorced each other not through any legal means but only through an affidavit. Accordingly, he submits that the complainant/prosecutrix continued to be a married woman. Apart from the fact that the complainant was major and she entered into relationship with appellant voluntarily with fully knowing the consequences and hence does not constitute any offence under Section 376 IPC.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naim Ahmad Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89 , wherein in para 22 the Apex Court has observed as under :-

¶13

" 22. In the instant case, the prosecutrix who herself was a married woman having three children, could not be said to have acted under the alleged false promise given by the appellant or under the misconception of fact while giving the consent to have sexual relationship with the appellant. Undisputedly, she continued to have such relationship with him at least for about five years till she gave complaint in the year 2015. Even if the allegations made by her in her deposition before the court, are taken on their face value, then also to construe such allegations as "rape" by the appellant, would be stretching the case too far. The prosecutrix being a married woman and the mother of three children was matured and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was consenting to. Even otherwise, if her entire conduct during the course of such relationship with the accused, is closely seen, it appears that she had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused, for whom she had developed liking for him. She had gone to stay with him during the subsistence of her marriage with her husband, to live a better life with the accused. Till the time she was impregnated by the accused in the year 2011, and she gave birth to a male child through the loin of the accused, she did not have any

¶14

complaint against the accused of he having given false promise to marry her or having cheated her. She also visited the native place of the accused in the year 2012 and came to know that he was a married man having children also, still she continued to live with the accused at another premises without any grievance. She even obtained divorce from her husband by mutual consent in 2014, leaving her three children with her husband. It was only in the year 2015 when some disputes must have taken place between them, that she filed the present complaint. The accused in his further statement recorded under Section 313CrPC had stated that she had filed the complaint as he refused to fulfil her demand to pay her huge amount. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the prosecutrix had given her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under the misconception of fact, so as to hold the appellant guilty of having committed rape within the meaning of Section 375IPC. "

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid, specially the fact that the prosecutrix was in relationship with the appellant for a period of over seven years and she was a married woman not having been legally divorced, hence, it cannot be said that there was false promise of marriage by the appellant.

¶17

Accordingly, the matter requires consideration.

¶18

Admit .

¶19

Issue notice to opposite party no. 2. Let necessary steps be taken within next ten days.

¶20

List this case on 26.05.2025, alongwith service report.

¶21

Till the next date of listing proceedings of Sessions Case No. 175 of 2024 - State Vs. Pradeep Verma, arising out of Case Crime No. 208 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Jalalpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar, shall remain stayed.

¶22

Order Date :- 25.3.2025 A. Verma

¶23

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pradeep Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Rajeev Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Jagdeesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vinay Tiwari @ Vinay Chandra Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Shriram vs Urmila Devi

Hari Prasad Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mulayam Chandra Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another