Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43449-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6747 of 2025 Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Verma (In Fir Arvind Verma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A., who appears for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the following relief(s): "Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 15/07/2025 lodged by the Respondent No. 4 bearing FIR No. 320/ 2025, under Sections 69, 115 (2) BNS, 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012 and 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act, 1989, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District- Gonda, as contained in Annexure-1 to this Writ Petition." 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the informant willingly offered herself and entered into a physical relationship with petitioner No.1, who is a married man having two children. The informant is a neighbour and she knew that the petitioner No.1 is a married man yet she indulged in a sexual relationship with him and now was demanding money and when the petitioner No.1 refused to give, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before this Court judgment rendered in Prithhivirajan Vs. State Representative by the Inspector of Police and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 696, wherein the counsel for the petitioners has pointed out paragraph Nos. 6 and 7. 5. We have gone through the judgment, which is only an order, which has not been marked as "approved for reporting". It is not a judgment. This order has been rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case and cannot be treated as a precedent in other cases. With regard to the observation made in paragraph 6 of the judgement, we are reproducing the same herein below: "6. This Court has time and again reiterated that only because physical relations were established based on a promise to marry, it will not amount to rape For the offence of rape to be attracted, the following conditions need to be satisfied first, the accused promised to marry the prosecutrix solely to secure consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning; second, that the prosecutrix gave her consent for sexual relations by being directly influenced by such false promise of marriage. [See: Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra: Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra" 6. Whether there was any genuine intention to marry the informant on the part of the petitioner No.1 or not, can only be looked into after evaluation of the evidence by the trial court. Moreover, under Section 69 of the B.N.S., a specific provision has been made with regard to such offences, as mentioned in the F.I.R. 7. We do not find any good ground to show interference. 8. The writ petition stands dismissed. (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Arvind Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench