HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2094 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application has been filed with the following main reliefs: "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be please to quash the charge-sheet No. A141/2025, dated 31.05.2025, U/s- 69, 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and cognizance order dated 25.06.2025 issued by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya, arising out of Case Crime No.126 of 2025, under Section- 69, 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Kotwali Rudauli, District- Ayodhya as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.12194 of 2025 (State Vs. Dhirendra Pratap Tiwari) pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya. (Contained as ANNEXURE NO.1 & 2 to this application). It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 12194 of 2025 (State Vs. Dhirendra Pratap Tiwari) pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2025, under Section- 69, 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Kotwali Rudauli, District- Ayodhya, in the interest of justice." 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that opposite party no.2 is a married lady and she had lodged false FIR making allegation that on the pretext of marriage, physical relation was established by the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Mishra, Ravi Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dhirendra Pratap Tiwari .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) applicant. He has submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant is a marginal witness in a sale deed which was executed in favour of opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that opposite party no.2 is a married lady and she cannot lodge FIR for the offence under Section 69 of BNS, 2023. 4. On the other hand, Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned AGA has pointed out the statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS in which the prosecutrix has very specifically stated that her divorce has taken place and on the pretext of marriage, applicant had established physical relation on 18.3.2025 at 10:30 p.m. He has submitted that the statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS is a reliable statement and this Court cannot do mini trial. He submits that this Court cannot weigh the evidence whether opposite party no.2 is a married and whether divorce has taken place or not. This is all to be decided by the trial court. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 BNSS, which clearly shows that on the pretext of marriage, applicant had established physical relation, I do not find it to be a fit case for interference. The prosecutrix has already stated that she is a divorcee and all these factual aspects cannot be gone into by this Court for which, trial is required. 6. The application is dismissed. December 11, 2025 Sachin NA528 No. 2094 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench