HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22013 of 2025 RESERVED Court No. - 44 HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J. 1. This writ petition has been instituted with a prayer to quash the First Information Report ('FIR' for short) dated 23.07.2025, giving rise to Case Crime No. 715 of 2025, under Sections 69, 115(2), 351(3), 299, 318(4), 89 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5/9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Police Station Bahedi, District Bareilly. 2. Heard Mr. Shiv Shankar Kaithal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Virendra Singh Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State. 3. It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of the FIR shows that the entire allegation of winning over the prosecutrix by sweet talk and blandishment is against one Bakhtawar, his brother Tajwar and their mother, against whom alone, the impugned FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix. It is pointed out that it was Bakhtawar, who, after winning over the prosecutrix, stayed with her in a relationship outside Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kaithal, Advocate for Mr. Virendra Singh Yadav, Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, Additional Government Advocate for the State Laxmi Devi .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and others .....Respondent(s) wedlock for a year and then feigned a marriage by misrepresenting his religion as Hinduism, when, in fact, he was a Muslim. Later on, when the prosecutrix went over to Bakhtawar's home, she discovered that he was a Muslim. She resisted the relationship between parties, upon which, Bakhtawar, his brother Tajwar and their mother beat up the prosecutrix and threatened her with death, if she revealed these facts to anyone. The prosecutrix would stay with the three of them out of fear. She conceived during this period of time, but Bakhtawar's mother took her to a private hospital and got an abortion done. 4. It is pointed out that the FIR says that Bakhtawar's family would do other unlawful things, as force feeding the prosecutrix with something, which she called “awaidh maans”, referring to some kind of a meat. There are also allegations that Bakhtawar and his family had forced the prosecutrix into flesh trade by blackmailing her with certain video clips of hers, that he said he would float on the social media, ruining her reputation. 5. It is emphasized by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kaithal, that across the length and breadth of the FIR, the petitioner, Laxmi Devi's name does not figure. 6. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the motion to admit this writ petition to hearing and invited the Court's attention to the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS' for short). This is part of the Case Diary, which Mr. Tiwari has produced before the Court. CRLP No. 22013 of 2025 2 7. We have perused the prosecutrix's statement under Section 183 BNSS and find that though in a subtle and step-wise manner, it was the petitioner, Laxmi Devi, who pushed the prosecutrix into flesh trade. It was through introductions and contacts, showing a discernible pattern, that, by and by, the petitioner was pushed into a very immoral way of life, taking advantage of her lack of means. There is a graphic description in minute detail of inculpatory facts in the statement of the prosecutrix, that we have referred to, recorded before a Judicial Magistrate. 8. Considering the role assigned to the petitioner, we do no think that the absence of her name in the FIR saves her from the Police investigating this crime, where, a married woman, on account of her poverty and humble economic circumstances, was forced into flesh trade by a multitude of persons, amongst whom, the petitioner, Laxmi Devi, is one of the central figures. 9. In the totality of circumstances, we do not find it to be a fit case to interfere with the investigation or quash the impugned FIR. 10. The writ petition fails and stands dismissed. 11. Let the instructions and the Case Diary produced by Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate be retained on record and made part of it. October 15, 2025 I. Batabyal CRLP No. 22013 of 2025 3 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.) Digitally signed by :- ISHAN BATABYAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad