Allahabad HC Restrains Arrest of In-Laws in Unnao Rape and Dowry Case

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has directed that no arrest be made against three family members named in an FIR from Unnao that accuses them of rape, dowry harassment, and criminal intimidation.

The Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Rajeev Singh passed the order noting that the case “requires consideration” and directed for filing replies before the next date of hearing.

The petition before the Court sought to quash the FIR registered at Bhigapur police station, Unnao, under Sections 376 (rape), 498-A (cruelty), 323 (hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

According to the petitioners, who include the complainant's brother-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law, the allegations are baseless and stem from a matrimonial dispute.

They argued that the complainant married Jitendra Singh on March 3, 2023, but later alleged that her husband was impotent.

The family tried to reassure her, but she then accused petitioner no.1 of having physical relations with her on the assurance of marriage.

The petitioners pointed out that this claim was false, as petitioner no.1 subsequently married another woman on 7 December 2023.

They further argued that the FIR was lodged nearly two years after the alleged incidents, making it doubtful. A medical report from G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur, was also cited to show that the husband was fit for cohabitation.

On the other hand, the State's counsel and the complainant's lawyers opposed the plea. They informed the Court that petitioner no.1 had already applied for anticipatory bail, but his request was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Unnao on August 20, 2025. While they maintained that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case, they also acknowledged that petitioner no.1's marriage was not with the complainant but with another woman. They further admitted that, as per the FIR itself, the physical relationship between petitioner no.1 and the complainant appeared to have been consensual.

After hearing both sides, the Court granted two weeks time to the State and the complainant to file their counter affidavits, followed by one week for the petitioners to file a rejoinder. Till then, it ordered that the petitioners should not be arrested in connection with the FIR.

Brief Background

The case arises from an FIR filed by a woman in Unnao in June 2025, alleging that after her marriage she discovered her husband to be impotent.

She accused her in-laws of pressuring her into a relationship with her brother-in-law, promising marriage, and later threatening her when he married another woman.

She left her matrimonial home and eventually lodged the complaint. The in-laws deny the charges and call it a false case filed due to domestic discord.

Case Title: Dhirendra Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Bench: Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Rajeev Singh

Date of Order: September 9, 2025