Manish Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1589 of 2026

¶3

Manish Sharma And Another

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Ashish Rai, Om : G.A., Ghazala Khan	Prakash Rai Bano Quadri, Saima

¶6

Court No. - 51

¶7

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Om Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Ghazala Bano Quadri, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Shri K.K. Gupta, learned AGA for the State.

¶9

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellants with a prayer to allow the appeal and quash the the entire proceeding of S.S.T. No. 75 of 2026 (State versus Manish Sharma and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 594 of 2025, under Section 69, 352 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)V, 3(2)5a S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Modinagar, District Ghaziabad, pending before the Court of Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act/Additional District & Session Judge, Ghaziabad as well as quash the Charge Sheet dated 30.12.2025 and also Cognizance /Summoning Order dated 14.01.2026 passed in the aforesaid case.

¶10

The informant/victim, aged about 20 years, stated in FIR that she was in a physical relationship with appellant no.1-Manish Sharma for the last about two and a half years. She has alleged that when she asked him to marry her, he refused. It is further alleged that he made remarks about her caste and his mother, appellant no.2, also spoke offensive words to her regarding her caste. The informant belongs to Scheduled Caste, whereas the accused belongs to Brahmin caste.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the allegations in the

¶12

CRLA No. 1589 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

FIR indicate that the relationship between the victim and appellant no.1 was consensual and continued for more than two years. In her statement under Section 180 BNSS, the prosecutrix has admitted that the relationship between them was consensual. She has alleged that the appellant no.1 refused to marry her. She has further alleged that on 08.09.2025, the appellant abused her, and when her mother took her phone, he also abused her mother. It is submitted that the allegations are only of hurling abuses. A consensual relationship between the parties, subsequent refusal to marry, and alleged abuses do not constitute any offence. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the appellants are illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶15

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent/informant submitted that the statement of the victim is specific to the effect that she was exploited by the appellant no.1 on the pretext of marriage. It is submitted that establishing a physical relationship without any intention to marry is sufficient to constitute an offence on the ground of false promise of marriage. The victim has further alleged that she was also abused by the appellants. The impugned order of taking cognizance against the appellants is not illegal.

¶16

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record including the impugned order.

¶17

Statement of victim and her parents were perused. Both parents have admitted consensual relationship between victim and appellant no.1. Her father stated that appellants abused his children. Mother of victim stated that victim and appellant no.1 were quarrelling over telephone. When she took phone from her daughter and talked to appellant no.1 and his mother, both hurled abuses at her. Victim has also made similar allegations in her statement under Section 180 BNSS. However, she has not disclosed in her statement under Section 183 BNSS that whether the abuses were hurled at any particular place or it did take place during telephonic conversations. Even none witnesses have mentioned about the specific caste based abuses made by appellants.

¶18

From perusal of the FIR and the statements of the victim and her

¶19

CRLA No. 1589 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

parents, it is clear that relationship between the victim and the appellant no.1 was consensual and continued for more than two and a half years. The victim has also admitted this fact in her statement under Section 180 BNSS. The main allegation is that the appellant no.1 later refused to marry her. There is no specific claim that any promise of marriage was ever made by the said appellant. Regarding the allegation of false promise of marriage, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant no.1 never intended to marry her from the beginning. Mere refusal to marry at a later stage does not amount to an offence.

¶22

As regards the allegation of abuse, the statements show that the alleged abuses were made during telephonic conversation. There is no clear allegation of any specific caste-based abuse made at a public place or within public view. The allegations are general and do not contain specific details.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that no offence is made out against the appellants under Sections 69 and 352 BNS or under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Therefore, the impugned order taking cognizance against the appellants is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.

¶24

In view of the above, the cognizance/summoning order dated 14.01.2026 and charge-sheet dated 30.12.2025 are set aside, and the entire proceeding of S.S.T. No. 75 of 2026 (State versus Manish Sharma and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 594 of 2025, under Section 69, 352 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)V, 3(2)5a S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Modinagar, District Ghaziabad, pending before the Court of Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act/Additional District & Session Judge, Ghaziabad, are quashed.

¶25

This criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed .

¶26

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶27

March 20, 2026 SK

¶28

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

Manish Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt Sumitra Devi Vs State of Up and 6 Others

Bhanu Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Seema Chaudhary and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Alias Kalwa and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Sumitra Devi vs State of Up and 6 Others