Faiyaz @ Faiyaz Ansari and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Heard S/Sri Dev Tripathi and Mohd. Shibli Khan, learned counsel for the applicant(s), Ms. Tanvi Jain, learned A.G.A. appearing for the Stateopposite party no.1 and Sri Mohd. Arshad, learned counsel, who has filed power on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶11

The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1534 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.325 of 2025, under Sections 87 and 137(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Sharda Nagar, District Lakhmipur Kheri and the summoning order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Special judge (POCSO Act), Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶12

Counsel for the applicants submits that the FIR is ante-time because the prosecutrix has stated in her statement recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 that the incident took place on 08.11.2025 at 12’O Clock in the night and she was taken away forcefully by Mohd. Imran, son of the applicants, whereas FIR was lodged on 08.11.2025 at 3.30 P.M. He further submits that Nikah of the son of the applicants was performed with the prosecutrix in the presence of her parents on 05.11.2025 and thereafter the FIR was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix on 08.11.2025. It is submitted that no offence of rape is made out against the applicants, therefore, the entire proceedings along with the charge-sheet are liable to be quashed.

¶13

On the other hand, counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that as

¶14

NA528 No. 426 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

per the School Leaving Certificate, age of the prosecutrix is 14 years as her date of birth is recorded as 01.11.2011. He further submits that the prosecutrix is minor, therefore, any consent given by her, has no meaning and even if the Nikah has been performed, the same is void. He has also invited the attention of the Court towards the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherein she has stated that son of the applicants had taken her forcefully and committed rape. The said statement is supporting the prosecution case also. It is further submitted that statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 itself indicates that applicants were involved in performing the Nikah of their son, Mohd. Imran with the prosecutrix, who is admittedly 14 years of age, therefore, ti cannot be said that they have not committed the offence.

¶17

Learned AGA has also adopted the arguments advanced by the counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶18

After going through the record and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is evident that the prosecutrix is minor aged about 14 years and she has levelled allegation against the son of the applicants that she had been forcefully taken away by the son of the applicants and committed rape. The statement of the prosecutrix further indicates that at the time of Nikah, the prosecutrix was admittedly 14 years of age. The Nikah was performed in the presence of the applicants, therefore, they were also supporting the co-accused. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court to grant any relief to the applicants while exercising the inherent powers under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶19

Application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly rejected .

¶20

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶21

February 9, 2026

¶22

Rao/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Faiyaz @ Faiyaz Ansari and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faiyaz @ Faiyaz Ansari and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

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

Nilendra and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Kaif @ Jayar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rahul Kumar @ Rahul @ Manu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ravi Misra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Gyaneshwar Pandey and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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