The High Court at Allahabad has dismissed an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [formerly Section 482 CrPC] seeking to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of raping a woman under the guise of practicing exorcism. Justice Avnish Saxena held that the material on record, including the possession of indecent videos of the victim by the accused, provides a prima facie basis for the trial to proceed.
Background
The case (Case No. 68572 of 2024) originated from an FIR lodged on February 16, 2024, at Police Station Koirauna, District Bhadohi. The victim, a married woman, alleged that the applicant, Rohit Upadhyay, who claimed to be an exorcist, subjected her to repeated rape starting from February 16, 2022.
According to the prosecution, the accused called the victim to his house at 9:00 p.m. under the pretext of treating her two-year-old son. He allegedly gave her ‘Prasad’ containing a stupefying substance, causing her to lose consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, the victim found her modesty outraged. The accused then allegedly blackmailed her into subsequent sexual acts by claiming to have recorded “odd videos and photographs” of her, which he threatened to make viral.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the case was “false and frivolous,” stemming from long-standing enmity between the two families who are neighbors. The defense contended that there was no recording of indecent material and that the sexual relationship was consensual, characterizing it as a “love relation.” It was further submitted that the applicant had transferred money to the victim’s family via Google Pay, suggesting a different nature of the relationship.
Conversely, the learned AGA and the counsel for the informant opposed the application. They argued that the applicant exploited his position as an exorcist to rape the victim during a purported treatment of her child. They highlighted that the applicant himself had annexed “indecent videos and photographs” to a supplementary affidavit, which they claimed he had already made viral. The prosecution further alleged that the accused followed the victim to Orissa, where she lived with her husband, to continue his blackmail for sexual favors.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Avnish Saxena focused on whether the allegations in the FIR and statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were sufficient to proceed with the trial.
The Court observed that the applicant’s possession of the victim’s indecent videos—evidenced by his own supplementary affidavit—”prima facie substantiate the allegation of the victim made in the FIR and in her statement.” The Court noted:
“It is a matter of trial that how the applicant is in possession of the same, but it prima facie substantiate the allegation of the victim… there is triable issue and prima facie case is made out against the accused/applicant for continuance of trial.”
Discussing the scope of inherent powers, the Court referred to landmark precedents including Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana (1977), State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992), and Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka (2008). The Court reiterated that while the power to quash is wide, it must be exercised with circumspection and only in the “rarest of rare” cases to prevent the abuse of the process of law.
Decision
The Court concluded that there is “ample material on record” to proceed with the trial and that the case does not fit the category of a “rarest of rare case.”
“The Application under Section 482 CrPC is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed,” the Court ruled, refusing to quash the charge sheet or the ongoing proceedings.
Case Details
Case Title: Rohit Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. – 34871 of 2024
Bench: Justice Avnish Saxena
Date: March 18, 2026
