HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6765 of 2026 Court No. - 90 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned charge sheet dated 27.04.2026 as well as the cognizance order dated 29.05.2026 passed in Case No. 754 of 2026 (State v. Saurabh Teotia), arising out of Case Crime No. 720 of 2025, under Sections 78, 69, and 351(2) B.N.S., and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad. 3. The complainant has stated that she was about 17 years old in the year 2017, when the appellant met her, allured her with a promise of marriage, and established a physical relationship with her. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the victim was a consenting party and her age, as determined by medical examination, is 24 years. He further submitted that an amount of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs was also transferred into her account, and no offence is made out against the appellant since the victim was a consenting party. It was also submitted that the appellant had prepared photographs and videos of the victim and made them viral, after which an F.I.R. was lodged and subsequently a charge sheet was filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment in Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 15 SCC 385, contending that proceedings involving a consensual sexual relationship were quashed in that case. However, that judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anil Kumar Dubey, Chandra Bhan Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Hari Shanker Srivastava, Nikhil Srivastava Saurabh Teotia .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) in an appeal arising out of a final judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, after the adduction and complete appreciation of evidence. 6. At this stage, detailed appreciation of facts and evidence is not warranted, and the ratio of the cited judgment is not applicable to the case at hand to form a prima facie view before this Court. 7. The two basic questions of fact are whether the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence in the year 2017, and whether she was a consenting party. These are matters of evidence to be evaluated during trial. At this stage, it is not proper or justifiable to appreciate the evidence in detail. 8. There is no legal force in the appeal, it is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. September 29, 2026 K.K. Maurya CRLA No. 6765 of 2026 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad