HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5376 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to quash/set aside the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge, FTC-I (Crime Against Women) Jaunpur in Session Trial No. 314 of 2024 (State vs. Dharmveer) arising out of Case Crime No.128 of 2024, under Sections 376(2)(N) I.P.C., Police Station Khetasarai, District Jaunpur and to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case incident is said to have taken place in Mumbai regarding which an application was given by the victim to senior police Inspector, Daharavi, Police Station Thane, Dharavi, Mumbai which was transferred to District Jaunpur where present F.I.R. was lodged as Case Crime No.128 of 2024, under Section 376, 376(2)(N) I.P.C. After investigation charge sheet was filed before the learned court and cognizance of the offence was taken. Learned trial court has framed the charge on 04.05.2024 under Section 376(2)(N) I.P.C. without applying its judicial mind. From the facts as mentioned in the F.I.R. and also in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. no offence u/s 376(2)(N) I.P.C. is made out even though learned trial court has framed the charge. There is no any other statement in support of the allegations made by the victim even though the charge has been framed. There is allegation that the revisionist established physical relations with the victim and entered into marriage though he was already a married person and there was no illicit Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sanjay Kumar Mishra, V.K. Baranwal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dharmveer Gautam .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) relation between both of them. The revisionist is a personnel who works in C.R.P.F. Further submitted that the learned trial court at District Jaunpur has no jurisdiction to try the case since the incident took place in Mumbai, therefore, the order passed by learned trial court dated 04.09.2024 framing charge is illegal and is liable to be set aside and revision is to be allowed. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that from the contents of F.I.R. and the statement of the victim as made u/s 161 Cr.P.C. before the I.O., the allegation of establishing physical relations with the victim under the pretext of marriage amounts to commission of offence of rape. Under the pretext of marriage consent, if given by the victim cannot be said to be free consent. At the stage of framing of charge only prima facie case is to be seen. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the contents of F.I.R., the statement made by the victim as recorded by the I.O. u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the order order dated 04.09.2026 passed by the learned trial court by which charge has been framed u/s 376(2)(N) I.P.C., there appears no any illegality in framing the formal charge against the revisionist, therefore, it does not require any interference by this Court. So far as the question of jurisdiction of the learned trial court is concerned, this plea has not been raised by the revisionist before the learned trial court, therefore, he may take such a plea before the learned trial court which will be decided in accordance with law. Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of finally. May 14, 2026 Ashok Gupta CRLR No. 5376 of 2025 2 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad