HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6976 of 2026 Court No. - 90 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the cognizance order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar, as well as the charge-sheet dated 10.12.2025 in Sessions Trial/Sessions Case No. 690 of 2026 (State v. Pooja Chaturvedi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 357 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, and 118(1) of the BNS and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(da), and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 357 of 2025 on 16.10.2025 at 19:40 hours under Sections 3(1)(gha), 3(1)(da), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and Sections 118(1), 352, 351(2), 115(2), and 308(2) of the BNS. The complainant, Govind Diwakar, lodged the present FIR against (1) Pooja Chaturvedi, (2) Patrakar Baba, and (3) Vandana Sachan. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant was caught in a honeytrap by the appellant (Pooja Chaturvedi) for the purpose of extorting money. 4. The complainant stated that he met the accused/appellant about one and a half years ago in Jhansi. She stated that she was unmarried and started meeting with the complainant. The complainant came to know in April 2025 that the said lady was a divorcee, having already extorted an amount of Rs. 14 Lakhs from her former husband. After the said divorce, the lady further engaged with two other persons, extracted money from them, and completely closed relations with them. Hence, the complainant began keeping his distance from her. Even thereafter, the accused filed a false and Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sanjay Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Kuldeep Kumar, Om Ji Singh, Santosh Singh Pooja Chaturvedi .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) fabricated complaint at Police Station Kotwali, Jhansi. The complainant disclosed all the true facts to the concerned police at Kotwali, Jhansi. Subsequently, the accused/appellant visited the residence of the complainant in Kanpur, threatened that she would implicate all his family members in a false case, and demanded an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs from him. 5. Due to the entire situation, the family members withdrew their support from the complainant. Even thereafter, on 28.08.2025, the appellant/accused engaged in an altercation and hurled abuses at the complainant's mother and sister at his house in Kachchi Basti, in front of Jain Mandir, Gujaini A- Block, Police Station Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The family members of the complainant complained about the incident on the IGRS portal, but the police did not initiate any action. Thereafter, on 29.09.2025, the appellant, in collusion with local journalist Baba and one Vandana Sachan, again engaged in an altercation with the parents of the complainant and bit the hand of the complainant's mother. She further made an illegal demand of Rs. 1 Lakh, made casteist remarks, and humiliated him. A complaint regarding this incident was filed by the family members of the complainant on 08.10.2025. Late in the night on 06.10.2025, the appellant/accused further sent WhatsApp messages through an acquaintance, Raj Singh Thapa. As the appellant's illegal demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs was not met, she threatened to falsely implicate all members of the family in a false and fabricated case. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant/accused filed FIR No. 296 of 2025 on 24.10.2025 at Police Station Barra, Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar. The said FIR was lodged against the complainant, Govind Diwakar, and Jyoti Kushwaha under Sections 64(2)(m), 115(2), 351(3), and 89 of the BNS, 2023. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that she recorded her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS during the investigation of that case. 7. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 / first informant has submitted to this Court that in FIR No. 296 of 2025 filed by the appellant/Pooja Chaturvedi, no offence was found, and a final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer (I.O.). Whereas, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that her protest petition is pending in the said case, and the matter remains sub judice. 8. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that this is a case of a honeytrap where he was fraudulently trapped by the appellant, prompting him to file the FIR. A charge-sheet was filed against her after completing the investigation, and the trial court has issued summons to the appellant. CRLA No. 6976 of 2026 2 9. There is substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. The FIR was lodged detailing a complete background, and after completing the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned trial court, and summonses have been issued to the appellant. On the contrary, regarding the FIR filed by the appellant as Case Crime No. 296 of 2025, no offence was found during the investigation, and a final report was submitted; although a protest petition is pending, that remains subject to judicial determination following the principles of natural justice. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there is neither any illegality nor any irregularity in the impugned order dated 06.04.2026. 11. The criminal appeal lacks legal force and is liable to be dismissed; it is accordingly dismissed. September 29, 2026 K.K. Maurya CRLA No. 6976 of 2026 3 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad