HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2474 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 8.5.2025, passed by the Special Judge (MP/MLA)/Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court Ist, Basti in Session Trial No. 326 of 2025 (State Vs. Brijesh Kumar), arising out of case crime No. 408 of 2022, under Section 376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Purani Basti, District Basti, whereby the discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected by the learned trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently submitted that his discharge application has wrongly been rejected by the learned trial court. There is no offence under Section 376 IPC has been made. The opposite party no.2, who was consenting party and there were physical relationship, if any, that has been made with duly consent of opposite party no.2. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied on statement of opposite party no.2 recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is to be specified that the statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are not substantive piece of evidence, which could be used at the stage of trial for contradiction only. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied on Annexure-9 filed with his own revision that opposite party no.2 has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming herself to be the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Gaurav Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Brijesh Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) wife of revisionist/Brijesh. The opposite party no.2/complainant herself admitted in paragraph no.1 of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that her marriage was solemnized on 2.5.2018 with the revisionist according to Hindu rites. Hence, there is neither any offence under Section 376 IPC is made out against the revisionist and, therefore, the revisionist is entitled to be discharged. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/complainant has submitted that the FIR was lodged under Section 376, 504, 506 , 420, 313, 120B IPC against (1) Brijesh, (2) Raj Kumar and (3) Luxmi. She has narrated the incident that Brijesh had allured her as well as threatened to kill her and committed rape with her. When she made complaint to the parents of revisionist, then they had assured her that they will solemnize her marriage with Brijesh/revisionist. Thereafter, forcefully they got written an agreement of compromise on 18.5.2022 and she has also narrated that to safeguard himself, the revisionist has filed a forged case for maintenance on her behalf after framing fabricated document in Court. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has further submitted that after detail investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the revisionist-Brijesh under Section 376, 504, 506 IPC. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is self- contradictory. He has relied on the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C which is alleged to be filed by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionist/Brijesh after showing the opposite party no.2 as wife of Brijesh. If it is true and correct that revisionist/Brijesh has solemnized marriage with opposite party no.2, then why he has mentioned the opposite party no.2-Smt. Roma wife of late Basant in this memo of revision. Both are contradictory to each other. Prima facie, it appears that the revisionist has approached this Court not with clean hand. 8. It is settled law that who does not approach the court with clean hand, he is not entitled for any relief. The revisionist has finally contended that there is consent of opposite party no.2 for relationship, if any, between revisionist and opposite party no.2, they were consensual, hence no CRLR No. 2474 of 2025 2 offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. The question of consent that must be free consent. It should not be obtained either in impersonation or coercion or misrepresentation or undue influence or under any undue pressure. The prosecution has to be prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that offence, if any has been committed without her will and without her consent. Whether free consent was there as submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist, this is a question of fact which could be decided at the stage of trial after recording evidence of prosecution and defence and thereafter its appreciation in accordance with law. 9. For all these reasons mentioned herein above, there is no legal force in this criminal revision and same is liable to be dismissed. 10. The criminal revision is, accordingly, dismissed. February 25, 2026 sfa/ CRLR No. 2474 of 2025 3 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad