The Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings, including a charge sheet for repeated rape, against a government official, observing that the allegations of a forceful relationship continued over a long period under the threat of viral videos were prima facie not sustainable.
The Bench of Justice Avnish Saxena allowed the application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), setting aside the cognizance order and the entire proceedings of the criminal case against the applicants.
Case Background
The case stemmed from an FIR lodged on December 1, 2024, by a married woman (Opposite Party No. 2) against Neeraj Kumar (Applicant No. 1) and his cousin (Applicant No. 2). The complainant, whose husband is in the Army, alleged that she came in contact with Neeraj Kumar’s sister, Mamta, while preparing for the Provincial Civil Service (PCS) examination. Through Mamta, she met Neeraj, who had reportedly cleared the exam.
The complainant alleged that on August 7, 2022, Neeraj called her to a hotel in Bareilly to celebrate his birthday, where he allegedly raped her and recorded indecent videos. She claimed he subsequently blackmailed her, threatening to make the videos viral, and raped her on multiple occasions at different hotels between August 2022 and November 2023. She further alleged that Neeraj transferred the videos to his cousin (Applicant No. 2), who also attempted to blackmail her and eventually sent the videos to her family members.
Based on the FIR, a charge sheet was filed on February 12, 2025, for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act against Neeraj Kumar. His cousin was charged under Sections 354(d) and 506 IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the applicants argued that the FIR was grossly delayed and malicious. It was submitted that the relationship was consensual and had turned sour. The defense highlighted contradictions in the victim’s statements; while the FIR alleged forceful rape, her statement under Section 183 BNSS claimed she felt dizziness after drinking water kept in the hotel room.
The defense further contended that the basis of the blackmail—the alleged videos—did not exist. The victim admitted she had never seen the video. Furthermore, the victim’s husband stated he had “deleted” the videos allegedly received, and her father denied receiving any videos at all. The counsel relied on Supreme Court judgments including Tomaso Bruno Vs. State of U.P. regarding the non-availability of best evidence and Hasmukhlal D. Vora Vs. State of Tamil Nadu regarding unexplained delay.
The Counsel for the State and the complainant opposed the application, arguing that the delay was due to threats to the victim’s life and reputation. They contended that the applicant, a public servant, exploited the victim under the guise of guidance and subjected her to repeated rape through blackmail.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Avnish Saxena scrutinized the timeline and the nature of the allegations. The Court noted that the victim is a married woman with children aged 13 and 12.
Regarding the allegation of blackmail, the Court observed:
“She was not shown the video shot by the accused applicant no. 1. This shows that the victim was not having specific knowledge about the video shot by the accused applicant no. 1 but remain apprehensive of getting that video viral.”
The Court found it difficult to accept that a married woman would be consistently subjected to sexual intercourse at hotels under the fear of a video she had never seen. The Court noted:
“This is hard to believe that a married woman was consistently subject to sexual intercourse at the hotel under the fear that her video be made viral by the accused applicant no. 1, who himself is a public servant.”
The Court also examined the WhatsApp chats annexed with the application, stating:
“These chats on the face of it reveals intimate communications other than guidance for study.”
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Prashant Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025), where it was held that it is “inconceivable” for parties to maintain prolonged physical relations in the absence of voluntary consent. The Court also referred to Rajnish Singh @ Soni Vs. State of U.P. (2025).
On the allegations against the second applicant (the cousin), the Court found no evidence that he had transferred any video or used it for blackmail, noting the lack of material evidence regarding the transfer of videos to the victim’s family.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the victim appeared to be a consenting party and that the trial would be an abuse of the process of law.
“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.”
Consequently, the Court allowed the application and quashed Charge Sheet No. 70/2025, the cognizance order dated February 28, 2025, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1686/2025.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Neeraj Kumar and Another Versus State of U.P. and Another
- Case Number: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 15439 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Avnish Saxena
