Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points: The case involves an application under Section 528 BNSS filed by Rahul Singh (Applicant) to quash the charge sheet, cognizance order, and pending Sessions Trial proceedings arising from Case Crime No. 158 of 2024 (!) . The prosecution case is based on an FIR dated 19.08.2024 alleging rape on false promise of marriage, voluntary causing hurt, criminal intimidation, and forcible administration of medicine for abortion against a widow named as the victim (!) . The accused allegedly assured the victim he was unmarried and would marry her to gain her trust, while the victim knew he was a married man with children, leading to consensual sexual intercourse under a misconception of fact (!) . The defense argues there is no medical corroboration for rape, no specific date/time/place of the alleged criminal acts, and that the relationship was consensual; they also claim the accused is from a reputed family and falsely implicated (!) . The prosecution counters that the cheating regarding the marriage status is explicit in the record, consent was obtained through misrepresentation (false promise), and the matter of whether the victim knew about the accused's marriage is a question for trial (!) . The Court cites the Supreme Court judgment in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, establishing that for consent to be vitiated by a false promise of marriage, the promise must be false from the inception, given in bad faith, and directly relevant to the woman's decision (!) (!) (!) . The Court notes that the scope of powers under Section 482 CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS) is wide but must be exercised with circumspection, only in the "rarest of rare cases" to prevent abuse of process of law, citing precedents like Kurukshetra University, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, and Som Mittal (!) . The Court concludes that prima facie, the consent was obtained under a misconception of fact, but the awareness of the victim regarding the accused's marriage remains a question to be tried, making the application devoid of merit for quashing (!) . Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Application under Section 528 BNSS (!) .

Rahul Singh vs State of U.P. - 2026 Supreme(All) 330

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AVNISH SAXENA
Rahul Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Manvendra Singh
For the Respondent: Devendra Singh, G.A

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The case involves an application under Section 528 BNSS filed by Rahul Singh (Applicant) to quash the charge sheet, cognizance order, and pending Sessions Trial proceedings arising from Case Crime No. 158 of 2024 (!) .
The prosecution case is based on an FIR dated 19.08.2024 alleging rape on false promise of marriage, voluntary causing hurt, criminal intimidation, and forcible administration of medicine for abortion against a widow named as the victim (!) .
The accused allegedly assured the victim he was unmarried and would marry her to gain her trust, while the victim knew he was a married man with children, leading to consensual sexual intercourse under a misconception of fact (!) .
The defense argues there is no medical corroboration for rape, no specific date/time/place of the alleged criminal acts, and that the relationship was consensual; they also claim the accused is from a reputed family and falsely implicated (!) .
The prosecution counters that the cheating regarding the marriage status is explicit in the record, consent was obtained through misrepresentation (false promise), and the matter of whether the victim knew about the accused's marriage is a question for trial (!) .
The Court cites the Supreme Court judgment in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, establishing that for consent to be vitiated by a false promise of marriage, the promise must be false from the inception, given in bad faith, and directly relevant to the woman's decision (!) (!) (!) .
The Court notes that the scope of powers under Section 482 CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS) is wide but must be exercised with circumspection, only in the "rarest of rare cases" to prevent abuse of process of law, citing precedents like Kurukshetra University, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, and Som Mittal (!) .
The Court concludes that prima facie, the consent was obtained under a misconception of fact, but the awareness of the victim regarding the accused's marriage remains a question to be tried, making the application devoid of merit for quashing (!) .
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Application under Section 528 BNSS (!) .

JUDGMENT :

AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Shashi Kant Tiwari, learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of the present application under Section 528 BNSS the accused/applicant seeks interference of this Court to quash the charge sheet dated 29.09.2024, cognizance order dated 11.11.2024, taken by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Fatehpur and the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 550 of 2025 (State Vs. Rahul Singh) arose out of Case Crime No. 158 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 376, 313, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Kishanpur, District Fatehpur, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No.1, Fatehpur.

3. The prosecution case evolved through the FIR dated 19.08.2024, registered at Police Station Kishanpur, District Fatehpur at 22:08 Hrs. against the five named persons, namely, Rahul Singh (applicant), Narendra Singh, Raju, Munna and Vikas through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The main allegation of rape on false promise of marriage is on accused/applicant. The other co-accused were assigned the role of forc