HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 923 of 2021 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. List revised. None appears for the opposite party no.2, despite the fact name of Sri Raj Mani Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has been shown in the cause list. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Sudha Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1864 of 2020 (State Vs. Subham Yadav and another) under Sections 365, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C., POlice Station Maharuwa, District Ambedkar Nagar pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar as well as to quash the charge sheet dated 08.12.2019 and also the cognizance/summoning order dated 03.02.2021 passed in the aforesaid case, so far as it relates to the applicant.. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the allegation against the applicant is that he along with co-accused Ajmeer alias Garib enticed away the sister of the informant. Learned counsel has argued that the victim was major and had gone away with the co-accused out of love and affection without any threat or coercion and had solemnised marriage with the co-accused and in regard learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the marriage registration certificate, issued by Marriage Registration Officer on 10.09.2018, copy of which is at page no. 53 of the paper book. Learned counsel further argued that the victim and the co-accused also challenged the F.I.R., before this Court, in which interim Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alok Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Raj Mani Dubey Subham Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) protection was granted till submission of police report, however the same became infructuous by the efflux of time. Learned counsel also argued that the victim had given an affidavit before the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi wherein, paragraph no.4 of the affidavit, she has specifically stated that she has no complaint against the applicant and in case, any complaint is moved against him, no further proceedings may be drawn against the applicant. Learned counsel next argued that on account of matrimonial discord between the victim and her husband i.e. co-accused, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has levelled allegation of rape against the applicant and thereafter the investigation was culminated in submission of charge sheet, upon which, the learned Magistrate too vide order dated 14.02.2020 has taken cognizance. Learned counsel also argued that the applicant has been victmised of false accusation and that no offence has been committed by the applicant. It is thus argued that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment and therefore the proceedings under challenge may be quashed by this Court. 5. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves adjudication of a factual dispute and appraisal of evidence. 6. Perusal of the record shows that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has levelled specific allegation against the applicant. Apart from the same, the victim has also deposed in her statement her marriage was solemnised on account of threatening given to her. Thus, from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. 7. The reliefs as sought by the applicant is refused. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. A482 No. 923 of 2021 2 9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicant and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicant by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicant. 10. As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific direction need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off. 12. Office is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to concern Court below forthwith. (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) December 9, 2025 S.Ali A482 No. 923 of 2021 3 Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench