Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11317-DB Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9923 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vikas Dubey Alias Vikas Kumar Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for State-respondents. 2. The petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the first information report dated 12.11.2024, as Case Crime No.474/2024, under section 328, 376, 506 B.N.S., Police Station- Milarea, District- Raebareli. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.1 to 3 not to arrest the Petition in Case Crime No.474/2024, under section 328, 376, 506 B.N.S., Police Station- Milarea, District- Raebareli. (iii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opposite party no.1 to 3 not to harass the Petitioner on the behest of the opposite party no. 4." 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that story set up is absolutely false and is in self contradiction, inasmuch as, in case the petitioner and the victim were both studying together, there was no occasion to commit rape at a later stage as that could have happened when they were studying together. 4. We do not find force in the aforesaid submission as it is very natural that as the petitioner and victim were studying together and were together since then, their relationship tend to increase by passage of time, therefore, victim believed upon the accused/ petitioner, thus, we do not find force in the aforesaid contention. 5. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner got married in the year 2017 and to support the said contention he has only annexed marriage card along with the supplementary affidavit. No other relevant document in support of proof of marriage of the petitioner has been annexed with the writ petition. 6. The petitioner having a marriage of 7-8 years old and the petitioner being an advocate knowing very well all the laws, it is not believable that in the last 7-8 years the petitioner could not get any relevant or appropriate document to prove his marriage. 7. The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that impugned FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of two years. 8. In matters of promise of marriage, normally the victim believes the accused and hence, in the present case on a promise of marriage and a continuing relationship between the petitioner and the victim, it appears to be the circumstance, therefore, delay in lodging the FIR does not impact the case. 9. In view of the above, we do not find and good ground for consideration and from the reading of the impugned FIR cognizable offence is clearly made out against the petitioner, thus, this Court finds no good ground to show interference as prayed in this petition. 10. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Vivek Chaudhary, J.) Order Date :- 21.2.2025 Arnima Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench