HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7459 of 2026 Court No. - 48 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 22.11.2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 0004 of 2025, under Sections 143(2), 336(3) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Anti Human Trafficking Unit, District Banda. 3. As per the allegations made in the impugned first information report, it is alleged that in-spite of informant's first subsisting marriage, she was brought by her mother Munni and her brother Jainarayan to Banda and they have forcibly remarried her with one Krishna Kumar, resident of Haryana after taking a sum of Rs.1,38,000/- from him. The victim was sold to him (Krishna Kumar). She was forcibly married and they were trying to send her with him (Krishna Kumar). 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The petitioner is not named in the first information report and his name came into picture when the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 180 BNSS. The respondent no. 4 executed marriage agreement dated 22.11.2025 with Krishna Kumar and the petitioner is neither a witness of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Bharti, Kamlesh Prasad Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Premchandar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) said marriage agreement nor was present at the time of execution of same. The informant is not an honest lady and has got prepared her two Aadhar Cards, one with name of 'A' and other with name of 'B' with different parentage and address. There is no recovery from the possession of the petitioner and he is not related with any co-accused or with victim. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report, prima facie no offence, complained of, is disclosed against the petitioner and as such, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR as well as the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in the present case, it was the petitioner who was responsible for human trafficking of the victim and has actually received money, which he received from one Neeraj Kumar for which oral and documentary evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer. The victim in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has stated specific role of the petitioner and charge sheet against all other accused have already been filed and investigation against the petitioner is still going on, in which he is not cooperating at all. 7. Learned AGA has next submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report prima facie offence, complained of is clearly disclosed against the petitioner and, as such, the first information report cannot be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2024, Directorate Enforcement Vs. Niraj Tyagi and others. 8. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations made in the impugned CRLP No. 7459 of 2026 2 F.I.R. as well as statement of victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS as recorded in the Case Diary, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is not named in the FIR but the victim has made very serious allegations against her real mother and her real brother regarding human trafficking of herself for an amount of Rs.1,38,000/-. The victim in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has specifically stated that she was a married lady and on the date of incident, i.e., 20.11.2025, she was brought to Tehsil Baberu by her mother and her brother, where the petitioner was also present, who was an acquaintance of his brother. All these persons, i.e., her mother, her brother and the petitioner asked her to mark her thumb impression on a paper, thereafter they talked to unknown person regarding payment of money. Thereafter the aforesaid unknown person, her brother and the petitioner went to some place and returned back. She was thereafter sent with unknown person by them, who told her that he has married her and bought her and has paid a sum of Rs. 1,38,000/- to her brother and petitioner Premchandar. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has also made similar specific allegations against the petitioner. 9. During the course of investigation, Centre Operator of Jan Sewa Kendra, namely Neeraj was recorded, who stated that accused Krishna Kumar came to his centre where he procured Rs. 1,38,000/- in his (Neeraj's), Saving Account of State Bank of India and aforesaid amount was withdrawn by him (Neeraj) and handed over to the petitioner and Jainarayan (who is the brother of the victim). Even he handed over the photocopy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner to the Investigating Officer and the petitioner himself has written on the aforesaid photocopy of his Aadhar Card that he has received an amount of Rs.1,38,000/-. Neeraj also handed over the copy of transaction statement, copy of Aadhar Card of Neera and CCTV Footage and in the CCTV Footage this transaction payment was recorded. It is thus, clear that it was the petitioner, who has received the aforesaid amount on account of human trafficking of the victim. Charge sheet against all other accused have already been filed and investigation against the petitioner is still going on, in CRLP No. 7459 of 2026 3 which he is not cooperating at all. 10. In our considered opinion, a prima facie case has been made out at this stage against the petitioner. The allegations are very serious in nature, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence against the other co-accused and during the course of investigation, sufficient evidence has already been collected implicating the petitioner, as such, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed at this stage . 11. The prayer for quashing the impugned first information report is, therefore, refused. 12. The instant writ petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly, dismissed. May 12, 2026 Monika CRLP No. 7459 of 2026 4 (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad