HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34162 of 2025 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. Heard Sri Salman Ahmad and Sri Umair Alam, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.947 of 2017 (State Vs. Jeeshan Pasha), arising out of Case Crime No.953 of 2016, under Sections 452, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad is under challenge. The basis of moving to this Court invoking Section 528 B.N.S.S. is two judgments of the Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the applicant in the cases of Kunal Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and others [SLP (Crl.) No.7004 of 2025), decided on 29.07.2025] & Rajnish Singh alias Soni Vs. State of U.P. and another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415]. He further submits that the factual matrix of this case is squarely covered by the judgment. There was a consensual relationship between the parties. The parties were adult when entered into relations. The occurrence continued from the year 2009 to 2016, hence, the F.I.R. has been registered in the year 2016, which led to submission of charge sheet. As such, seek interference of this Court to quash the entire proceedings. 3. During inquiry, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the two witnesses have already been examined in the case during trial, though the statements of those witnesses have not been filed along with this application. 4. Learned A.G.A. accepts notice for the State. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Umair Alam Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Zeeshan Pasha .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. There is no point in issuing notice to opposite party no.2. 6. The accused applicant is already facing trial before the trial court and two witnesses have already been examined, as has been stated by the learned counsel for the applicant. His reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court is merely on the basis of fact that the accused and the victim were adult and having consensual relationship, which cannot absolve the applicant of criminal intent because the bare perusal of F.I.R. reveals that the rape has been committed on gun point. 7. The only point argued before this Court does not warrants interference. Hence, the application is dismissed. September 9, 2025 Shivangi NA528 No. 34162 of 2025 2 (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad