Arpit Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Arpit Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim relief: notice issued to the respondents; steps to serve respondent no. 2 within two weeks; matter listed after six weeks; summoning order dated 09.07.2025 in Case Crime No. 205 of 2025, P.S. Banthara, District Lucknow stayed as against the applicants until the next date of listing.

Issue for consideration

Whether, given the FIR allegation of physical relations formed on a false pretext of marriage and the victim's Section 183 BNSS statement indicating a long-standing relationship, the element of threat or false promise is prima facie absent, such that the summoning order dated 09.07.2025 (Case Crime No. 205 of 2025) requires consideration/interference under Section 528 BNSS.

Court's answer

Considering the nature of the victim's Section 183 BNSS statement (acquaintance since Class 12, contact for about four years, physical relations over a span of about three years), prima facie the element of threat or a false promise appears to be missing from the FIR allegations, and therefore the matter requires consideration.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), February 17, 2026 (Pankaj Bhatia, J.) — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 395 of 2026, Arpit Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home And Another. The applicants sought relief against the summoning order dated 09.07.2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 205 of 2025, P.S. Banthara, District Lucknow, in which the informant alleged that physical relations were formed on a false pretext of marriage and that the applicant was refusing to marry her. Relying on the victim's statement under Section 183 BNSS — that she knew the applicant since Class 12, had been in conversation for about four years, and the physical relations lasted over a span of three years — the Court observed that prima facie the element of threat or a false promise appeared to be missing, and that the matter required consideration. Notice was issued, service of respondent no. 2 was directed within two weeks, and the summoning order was stayed as against the applicants till the next date of listing (after six weeks).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 395 of 2026

Arpit Singh And Another

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home And Another

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Amit Kumar Gaur . : G.A.

Court No. - 12

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

2. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that in terms of the FIR allegations have been levelled by the informant stating that she was aged about 23 years and on false pretext of marriage, physical relations were formed and now the applicant was refusing to marry her. In her statement under Section 183 BNSS, the victim admitted that she knew the applicant since the time she was studying in Class 12 and was talking for the last four years and physical relations lasted over a span of 3 years.

3. Considering the nature of the statement, prima-facie, the element of threat or a false promise appears to be missing, as such, matter requires consideration.

4. Issue notice.

5. Steps be taken to serve respondent no.2 within two weeks.

6. List after six weeks.

NA528 No. 395 of 2026

2

7. Till the next date of listing, summoning order dated 09.07.2025 arising out of Case Crime No.205 of 2025, P.S. Banthara, District Lucknow shall remain stayed as against the applicants.

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

February 17, 2026

nishant

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench