Victim Was Consenting Party; Record Silent About Transfer Of Indecent Video: Allahabad High Court Quashes Rape Case Against Public Servant
The Allahabad High Court was considering an application filed under Section 528 BNSS moved by the accused-applicants to quash the charge-sheet, the cognisance-taking order, as well as the entire proceedings in a criminal case.
The Allahabad High Court has quashed a rape case against a public servant after noting that the victim, an educated married lady, was a consenting party and the record was silent about the transfer of any indecent video or photographs of the victim either to her husband or to family members.
The High Court was considering an application filed under Section 528 BNSS moved by the accused-applicants to quash the charge-sheet, the cognizance taking order as well as the entire proceedings of a criminal case registered under Section 376(2)(n), 323 & 506 of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act against the first applicant and Sections 354(d) & 506 IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act against the second applicant.
The Single Bench of Justice Avnish Saxena held, “The victim herself has stated that she met applicant no. 1 at his residence and even outside. She came to attend the birthday of accused applicant no. 1 at hotel and subsequently she under duress of getting the video viral, which she has never seen, succumbed to the alleged pressure. The record is silent about the transfer of any indecent video or photographs of victim either to her husband or to family members. There is no CCTV footage of hotel. All these facts shows that the victim is a consenting party, whose consent has neither been obtained for the fear of death of her children nor on blackmailing her with indecent video and photographs.”
Advocate Amit Kumar Srivastava represented the Applicant while Advocate Adarsh Bhushan represented the Oppostie Party.
Factual Background
The first information report was lodged by the second opposite party against the accused applicants, alleging therein that the victim was a married woman whose husband is in the Army. During her preparation for PCS (Provincial Civil Service), she became friends with one Mamta, who introduced the victim to her brother (the first applicant accused). It was claimed by Mamta that her brother was working as a Child Development Program Officer. The victim alleged that the first accused applicant called the victim at a Hotel to attend his birthday celebration and forcefully raped her. It was alleged that he recorded her indecent videos and photographs. The victim was then threatened that he would make the video viral. On such threats, the accused again called the victim and committed rape. It was alleged that the accused transferred those videos and photos to his cousin brother, the second applicant, who also asked her for sexual favours, but she refused the demand.
It was alleged that on such refusal, the second accused transferred the videos and photographs to the family members of the victim and made her life miserable.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the victim is a married woman who has stated to be pursuing the Provincial Civil Services examination, and to achieve success in the competitive exams, she came in contact with the first applicant. However, there was nothing on record to show that she was really an aspirant for competitive exams. The victim herself had stated that she met the first applicant at his residence and even outside. She came to attend the birthday of the accused applicant at the hotel, and subsequently, under duress of the video getting viral, she succumbed to the alleged pressure.
The Bench noted that the record was silent about the transfer of any indecent video or photographs of the victim either to her husband or to family members. The Bench further found that there was no evidence against the second accused applicant that he had ever transferred any video or photo of the victim or used it for the purpose of blackmailing the victim. Further referring to the WhatsApp chats between the first accused applicant and the victim, the Bench stated that the same revealed intimate communications other than guidance for study.
Thus, allowing the application under Section 528 BNSS, the Bench quashed the charge sheet, the cognisance-taking order as well as the entire proceedings against both the accused persons.
Cause Title: Neeraj Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:33341)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates Amit Kumar Srivastava, Keshari Nath Tripathi, Raghuvansh Misra, Ram Kumar Yadav
Respondent: Advocates Adarsh Bhushan, Anurag Kumar Pandey, Government Advocate