Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40847 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39453 of 2024 Applicant :- Nand Lal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijendra Pal Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Abhishek Dubey (AOR A/A 0562/2021) holding brief of Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and Sri Amit Kumar Singh (AOR A/A 0573/12) holding brief of Sri Bijendra Pal for opposite party No. 2. 2. This application U/s 482 has been filed for quashing the charge dated 20.09.2024 framed against the applicants in the offence under Sections 354-B, 323, 324, 504, 506, 452 IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 in Complaint No. 71 of 2024 (Bheemsen Vs. Nand Lal and others), P.S. Nawabganj, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 2/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the lodging of the impugned complaint proceedings against the applicant on 26.05.2023 is nothing but a counter blast as an FIR stood lodged by the wife of the applicant no. 3 on 05.05.2023 being No. 0212 of 2023 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC against the opposite party No. 2 faction and on 15.05.2023 the wife of the applicant No. 2 also lodged proceedings under Sections 323, 324, 354Ka, 354Kha, 452, 504, 506 IPC against the applicant faction. He submits that it is a matter of counter blast on 26.05.2023 the complaint has been lodged regarding the commission of offences on 21.05.2023, learned counsel for the applicants submits that no such incident stood occurred and further the applicant at an earlier point of time had already approached this Court questioning the charge sheet but the application stood disposed of for consideration of the bail and, thus, the present proceedings wherein charges have been sought to be challenged is maintainable and the order passed earlier would have no impact upon the same. 4. Learned AGA as well as the counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that once the application seeking to challenge the charge sheet and the entire proceedings stood decided on 02.04.2024 in Application U/s 482 No. 3713 of 2024 wherein the counsel for the applicants did not press the prayer for quashing of the said proceedings then the same would not clothe the applicants to again argue about the question of counter blast as the same is only a defence and once the applicants plead their defence then all the said aspects can be considered. Learned counsel for the applicant No. 2 had also made a statement at bar that two of the witnesses have been cross examined by the applicant and the trial is going on. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention in the present proceedings at this stage. Interestingly, the applicants had already preferred Application U/s 482 No. 3713 of 2024 questioning the charge sheet and the entire proceedings in which the only relief accorded was for surrender and to obtain bail. The order whereof is being quoted hereinunder.- "1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vinay Singh Singrour, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Pushpendra Singh Jadon, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order 09.11.2023 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly as well as entire proceeding of S.S.T. No.622 of 2023 arising out of Complaint Case No.434 of 2023, under Sections 452, 354-B, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC and 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, Police Station - Nawabganj, District Bareilly pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants do not want to press the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. They wants to surrender before the court and apply for bail. He further submits that this Court may be pleased to direct the court concerned to consider the bail application of the applicants expeditiously within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court. 4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the present application is disposed of with the direction that in case, the applicants surrender before the Court concerned and apply for bail within two weeks from today, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the court below, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922. 5. For a period of three weeks from today or till disposal of bail application of applicants, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case." 7. Thus, it can very well be said that the theory so sought to be propounded regarding counter blast with respect to FIR lodged by the applicants is not to be taken into consideration as it is a matter of defence and the said stage had not arrived. Apart from the same, now the charges have been framed and it shall always be open for the applicants to plead his innocence and face the trial. In absence of pointing out of any jurisdictional infirmity, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere in the present proceedings. 8. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad