Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141776-DB Reserved on 9.7.2025 Delivered on 20.8.2025 Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14269 of 2025 Petitioner :- Satyprakash Singh Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sharique Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and Sri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents. 2. Short counter affidavit filed by Sri Sharique Ahmad on behalf of the respondent no. 3 be kept on record. 3. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report dated 17.4.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 99 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 64(2)(m) of BNS and 3(2)(v) SC/ST (P.A) Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Kanpur Nagar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations in the FIR itself unfold that relationship between informant and petitioner were consensual and petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Informant herself has stated that she was in relationship with petitioner since November/December, 2024. Informant has also alleged that she was forcefully taken to various hotels by the petitioner in order to establish relationship with informant without her consent. In fact, both of them were living cordially and some dispute occurred between them as a result of misunderstanding due to which informant has lodged this FIR. Statement of informant was also recorded under Section 180 and 183 of BNSS, where she has corroborated her earlier version of FIR. Later on, informant herself initiated steps to settle the dispute by arriving at a compromise. Hence, she herself sent her affidavit before police Commissioner, Kanpur Nagar, that the above FIR was lodged by her in the heat of moment and she was neither raped by the petitioner nor any such video was recorded as alleged in the FIR. She has specifically stated that neither she had suffered any abortion nor was threatened by the petitioner to assault her by throwing acid. 5. Learned AGA has resisted the arguments and submitted that cognizable offence against the petitioner is made out as informant has supported the prosecution version when her statements were recorded before the I.O. under Section 180 of BNSS and before competent Magistrate under Section 183 of BNSS. If any, affidavit as claimed by the petitioner has been submitted by the informant in favour of petitioner, said affidavit will not rescue the petitioner because statement of informant will prevail over any such subsequent affidavit. 6. We have perused the FIR along with other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. In order to address the issue, we have carefully perused the averments made in the FIR. Informant has stated that she is neighbour of petitioner and was engaged there as a helper. She has further alleged that she was raped by the petitioner when she was alone in her house. She was also assaulted and threatened and petitioner also recorded her obscene videos. Petitioner also threatened that said video will be made public if she discloses the incident. She was taken by the petitioner in various hotels where she was raped by him. She also became pregnant in between November, 2024 and January, 2025. She was forcefully administered contraceptive pills by the petitioner after her pregnancy report was found positive. It was further alleged that petitioner was demanding Rs. 50,000/- for deleting her obscene videos. 7. It will be pertinent to mention that FIR for the alleged incident which have been said to have occurred in-between November, 2024 to January, 2025 was lodged, on 17.4.2025. Thereafter, by means of a short counter affidavit it has been brought on record that an affidavit by the informant was moved before Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar. In the said affidavit, informant has denied all the allegations against the petitioner and has stated that she had lodged the FIR after being misled by her neighbours. Probable inference apparent from the FIR is that both parties were in consensual relationship. It is so because informant herself has mentioned that she was taken by the petitioner to various hotels for making physical relationship in Kanpur Nagar. It is highly improbable that a person alone can escort any lady to various hotels of a crowded city against her wish by making threats. It is unnatural that when such incidents occurs, the same would go unnoticed by neighbours and other persons in the hotel or city. Moreover, informant has not disclosed the first encounter she had with petitioner, rather has only disclosed the timing when she was forced to undergo abortion. Said concealment also leads to presumption that parties were in consensual relationship for some long time. 8. From the foregoing discussions and keeping in view the affidavit filed by the informant wherein she has denied every allegations made in the FIR, we find it fit to quash the FIR dated 17.4.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 99 of 2025, under Section 115(2), 352, 351(2), 64(2)(m) of BNS and 3(2)(v) SC/ST (P.A.) Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar and all the consequential proceedings arising out of it. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Ujjawal (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad