Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132602 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10859 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajendra Dubey @ Rajendra Kumar Dubey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application has been filed by applicant for quashing the charge-sheet dated 18.12.2022 in Case Crime No. 159/2022 under section 493, 504 and 506 IPC Police Station Shaktinagar, District Sonebhadra. Further to quash the entire criminal proceedings and cognizance/summoning order dated 01.02.2023 in Case No. 1593 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs Rajendra Dubey) arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2022 under section 493, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Shaktinagar, District Sonebhadra. 3. It is alleged in the first information report that the husband of the informant Jitendra Tiwari has died and the informant is the widow and is living with her 17 year old son. The applicant- accused was having acquaintance with the informant and over the period of time had physical relationship with the informant. As per allegations, the applicant offered the informant to marry and performed some rituals in the temple, however, some of the essential ingredients of marriage were not held and applicant promised the informant to have the same at later stage and on the pretext of the aforesaid the applicant is said to have had physical relationship with the informant and when the informant got pregnant the applicant was pressurizing the informant for abortion. The mediation proceedings were held by the police, however, the applicant resiled from the mediation proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is being prosecuted under Section 493 IPC on the ground that informant was already married when the alleged marriage is said to have taken place. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party no.4-Renu Tiwari wife of late Jitendra Tiwari is said to be the informant. It is submitted that no offence under Section 493 IPC can be said to be made out once the informant-Renu Tiwari has already married to another person namely Dharmendra Tiwari. In this respect, learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record the conviction judgment/order dated 09.04.2021, where Renu Mishra wife of Dharmendra Tiwari has been recorded. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present Renu Tiwari-informant and Renu Mishra wife of Dharmenra Tiwari are one and same person. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Arun Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2020 (3)SCC 736. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon page-21 of the supplementary affidavit dated 27.04.2025, where, it has been recorded that Renu Mishra wife of Late Jintendra Tiwari. He also relied upon the certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan that Ms. Renu Mishra and Renu Tiwari are one and same persons. 6. On the specific query being made to the learned counsel for the applicant, as to how, the identity of Renu Mishra can be established when in the conviction order at page-43 of the paper- book where Renu Mishra has been has been shown as wife of Dharmendra Tiwari and in the charge-sheet Renu Mishra has been shown as the wife of Late Jitendra Tiwari. 7. In the present FIR, Renu Tiwari has been shown as the wife of Late Jitendra Tiwari. Insofar as conviction order is concerned, the question whether Renu Tiwari was the wife of Late Jitendra Tiwari or Dharmendra Tiwari is a question of fact which has to be established before the trial court. So far as Renu Tiwari wife of Late Jitendra Tiwari is concerned, who is the present informant, the FIR itself establishes that Jitendra Tiwari has died. 8. The question with regard to the informant being married to Dharmendra Tiwari is a question which cannot be gone into by this Court under Section 528 BNSS which is required to be established by leading evidence before the trial court. Accordingly, at this stage this Court does not deem it fit and proper to engage into a mini trial and decide the case as such the present application filed under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. 9. However, liberty stands granted to the applicant, if so desires, to prefer a discharge application bringing the relevant factual controversy before the court concerned. In the event, any such application, in this respect has been filed, it is expected that the same shall be considered and decided by the court concerned, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 S.Prakash Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad