Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4788 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 646 of 2025 Applicant :- Nanhe Shukla Alias Mithalesh Kumar Shukla Alias Mithaleshakumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deo Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard Sri Deo Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record. The instant application has been preferred by the applicant seeking following main relief:- "WHEREFORE it is most respectfully prayed that in the above noted facts and circumstances, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to stay/set-aside the entire criminal proceedings of case no. 23861/2023 (state versus Nanhe Shukla and another) pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) R.T.C/J.M., Bahraich and quash the Charge dated 09.06.2023 filed under section 376, 406, 420, 506 IPC arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 038/2023 under section 376, 406, 420, 506 IPC, Police Station - Sujauli, District Bahraich so far as it relates with the petitioner and the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. may kindly be allow and further criminal proceedings of the present case against the petitioner may kindly be terminated, in the interest of justice." Learned counsel for the applicant stated that case of the applicant is similar to the case of co-accused/Ratan Prakash Singh in whose favour this Court had passed the order dated 03.10.2023 in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 9487 of 2023 (Ratan Prakash Singh vs. State of U.P. and another). The order dated 03.10.2023 reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Rakshit Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. Instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the cognizance/ summoning order dated 20.07.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) R.T.C./ J.M, Bahraich in criminal Case no.23861 of 2023 (State vs. Nanhe Shukla and Another), arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.38 of 2023, under Section 406, 420, 376D & 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sujauli, Distict Bahraich as well as chargesheet dated 09.06.2023 thereof as well as for quashing entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a belated F.I.R. was lodged in Case Crime No.38 under Section 406, 420, 376D & 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Sujauli, District Bahraich for an occurrence which is said to have taken place on 31.12.2022. He next added that the instant F.I.R. has been lodged after about three months from the date of occurrence and the investigating officer, after recording statement of the prosecutrix and the independent witnesses, filed the chargesheet against one of the accused, namely, Nanhe Shukla under Section 420, 406, 506 & 376 and against the applicant under Sections 420, 406 & 506 I.P.C. 4. He argued that one of the independent witness has very categorically stated that the present applicant was not at the place of occurrence but he was standing at the site of temple and this statement finds force as the prosecutrix has also stated that the present applicant was present but there is no allegation for committing the rape. He further added that the learned Trial Court without taking note of the above said fact, including the statement recorded by the investigating officer, summoned the present applicant under section 376D of IPC also, which at the first instance is abuse of process of law. 5. He further contended that it is a trite law that the Magistrate can summon an accused for the offences which are not charged in the charge sheet, while recording reasons for adding the sections but apparently no such reason has been recorded by the trial court while passing the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 6. Adding his arguments, he submits that the applicant was never involved in committing any offence under Section 376D of IPC, which is fortified by the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer, therefore, his submission is that the summoning order dated 20.07.2023 vitiates in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after noticing the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Section 376D has been added by the Trial Court while passing the summoning order dated 20.07.2023 and therefore there is no erroneousness in the order passed by the Trial Court thus no interference is warranted. 8. Matter requires consideration. 9. Let notice be issued to opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date. 10. Steps be taken within a week. 11. List/ put up this matter in the 3rd week of November, 2023. 12. In the meantime, opposite party/ State may file their counter affidavits. 13. Till then, the criminal proceedings against the present applicant shall remain stayed. 14. It is made clear that so far as the other accused persons are concerned, criminal proceedings against them shall remain continue." Having perused the recitals of above quoted order dated 03.10.2023, this Court finds that the case of the applicant herein is not similar to that of the co- accused/Ratan Prakash Singh. It is for the reason that the case of co- accused/Ratan Prakash Singh was entertained by this Court only on the ground that the charge sheet was filed against co-accused/Ratan Prakash Singh under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC but he was summoned under Section 376-D IPC, whereas, charge sheet was filed against the applicant herein under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 376 IPC. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the instant application. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Arun/- Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench