Case will be filed against Andawa’s Ravi Shankar Vishwakarma
Prayagraj: In a 2020 case related to the Sarai Inayat police station area, the Allahabad High Court has rejected the petition filed by accused Ravi Shankar Vishwakarma and refused to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings against him, the charge sheet, and the cognizance taken by the magistrate. This order was passed by Justice Madan Pal Singh on September 15, 2026. Accused Ravi Shankar had sought quashing of the order dated June 11, 2025, and the entire proceedings of criminal case number 862/2022. The case pertains to the Sarai Inayat police station, Prayagraj district. In the FIR, complainant Sarita Vishwakarma had alleged that after her father’s death in a road accident in 2014, she started living at her maternal uncle Ravishankar Vishwakarma’s house due to her mother’s ill health.
According to the complainant, her husband filed a complaint at Sarai Inayat police station, but no immediate action was taken. Subsequently, on July 6, 2020, a petition was submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj. It is alleged that during the police investigation, on July 9, 2020, she was summoned to the police station and pressured to reach a compromise, allegedly threatening to file a case against her under serious sections if she failed to reach a compromise. At that time, the complainant stated that she was seven months pregnant and that the recording of her conversation was preserved on her mobile phone.
After this, an FIR was registered on 17 July 2020.
Pursuant to the High Court order, after the FIR was registered, the investigation proceeded, and upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused under sections 406, 506, and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The concerned magistrate took cognizance of the charge sheet and issued summons to the accused. Thereafter, the accused moved the High Court challenging the criminal proceedings. In the High Court, the accused’s advocate Krishna Kumar Shukla argued that the allegations levelled in the FIR were false and baseless and the case was filed with the intention of harassing him by misusing the process of law.
On the other hand, Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the state and Sarita Vishwakarma – Anil Kumar Mishra opposed this and said that the allegations made in the FIR prima facie constitute a cognizable offence against the accused and the facts given in the defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Justice Madan Pal Singh said in the order that considering the material available on record and the facts of the case, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out against the accused. The court said that many of the arguments raised by the accused relate to disputed questions of facts. The court also said that at this stage it has to be seen whether the allegations made in the complaint, if considered to be completely true, prima facie constitute a cognizable offence against the accused.
The High Court said in its order that there was no material on record to show that the complaint was filed with malicious, baseless or harassing intent.
The court also noted that the statement of the victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 CrPC and sections 180 and 183 BNSS along with the FIR and the statements of witnesses support the prosecution’s version. Citing various decisions of the Supreme Court, the High Court said that there is no ground for interference in the criminal proceedings at this stage as the record prima facie reveals a case of cognizable offence. The court rejected the plea of the accused seeking quashing of the charge sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings and dismissed the application.
