Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10861 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41886 of 2024 Applicant :- Uday Nath Maurya Alias Priyanshu Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jyoti Mishra,Nagesh Kumar Dwivedi,Sushil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 19.09.2023, the summoning order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 02, Varanasi, in Case No. 882 of 2023 (State v. Dheeraj Maurya), arising out of Case Crime No. 213 of 2023, registered under Sections 354(Gha), 294, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi Commissionerate, Varanasi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant. It is contended that the applicant is a student and a law-abiding citizen with no prior criminal record. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that there are contradictions in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C., undermining the credibility of the prosecution's case. It is also submitted that all co-accused have been granted bail, there is no medical evidence to corroborate the allegations, and the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate lacks proper application of judicial mind. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application and refers to the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the FIR, highlighting that specific allegations have been made against the applicant, including acts of stalking, which constitute offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act. The learned A.G.A. asserts that the materials on record sufficiently disclose the commission of cognizable offences by the applicant. 5. After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State, and upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the allegations against the applicant, as detailed in the FIR and corroborated by the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., prima facie disclose the commission of offences under Sections 354(Gha), 294, 506 IPC, and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. The contradictions pointed out in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are matters to be scrutinized during the trial and cannot be resolved in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. The summoning order issued by the learned Special Judge cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity merely due to the absence of a medical examination report, as such a report is not a mandatory requirement for taking cognizance of the offences alleged. The sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence and the credibility of witnesses are issues to be adjudicated by the trial court upon proper appreciation of evidence during the trial. 7. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is reserved for cases where there is a manifest abuse of the legal process, or where interference is necessary to secure the ends of justice. The present case does not disclose any such exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of inherent powers. 8. In light of the above observations, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Anil K. Sharma Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad