The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has stayed the trial proceedings against Member of Parliament Rakesh Rathore in a case alleging sexual exploitation, pending adjudication of a criminal revision petition challenging the trial court’s order refusing his discharge.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed the interim order on May 20, 2025, in Criminal Revision No. 566 of 2025, staying the impugned order dated May 5, 2025, of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (O.A.W.), Sitapur. The trial court had rejected Rathore’s application for discharge in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 16 of 2025 under Sections 64(2), 351(3), 127(2), and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur.
Background
The complainant (opposite party no. 2) lodged an FIR on January 17, 2025, stating that she met the revisionist in 2018 during his tenure as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. She alleged that Rathore offered political partnership and later appointed her as District Chairperson – Women, of the Tailik Mahasangh, Sitapur, an organization of which he is the National Chairperson.
According to the FIR and subsequent statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNS, the informant alleged that Rathore raped her in March 2020 under false promises of marriage and repeated the act on multiple occasions. It was further alleged that on August 24, 2024, after becoming an MP, he coerced her into signing blank papers and threatened to defame her.
Arguments by Parties
Counsel for the revisionist argued that the allegations were inherently improbable, emphasizing the informant’s status as a 49-year-old married woman with a married son, and that the complainant’s husband, son, and daughter-in-law were the only witnesses supporting her version. The revisionist is also married and aged 60.
The revisionist’s counsel relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, to argue that the case falls within illustrative categories where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process. They also cited Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 741, where the Supreme Court emphasized that not every failed relationship involving a possibility of marriage warrants criminal prosecution.
On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General and Additional Government Advocate opposed the revision, asserting that there was sufficient material on record to justify a trial and that evaluating the probative value of evidence was not appropriate at the stage of discharge.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Court noted the circumstances of the informant—a married woman in a position of authority, supported only by close family members—and the conduct of the trial court in proceeding to frame charges on May 16, 2025, despite being informed of the pending revision filed on May 15, 2025.
Justice Vidyarthi observed:
“Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case… I am of the view that a case for grant of interim relief is made out.”
Accordingly, the Court stayed the operation of the order dated May 5, 2025, and all subsequent proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 2025, until the next date of listing in the week commencing July 28, 2025. Notices were issued to the opposite party with directions for filing counter and rejoinder affidavits.
The revision petition stands admitted. The matter is scheduled to be listed in the week starting July 28, 2025.
Case Details:
Case: Criminal Revision No. 566 of 2025
Parties: Rakesh Rathore vs. State of U.P. and Another
Counsel:
For the Revisionist: Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, Mr. Arun Sinha, Mr. Purnendu Chakravarty, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, and Mr. Wali Nawaz Khan
For the State: Mr. Vinod Kumar Shahi (Additional Advocate General) and Mr. Anurag Verma (Additional Government Advocate-I)
