2025:UHC:40 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application No. 1084 of 2024 03 January, 2025 Anurag --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal and Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned Brief Holders for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this C528 application, applicant has put to challenge cognizance/summoning order dated 03.10.2024; charge-sheet dated 16.08.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.150 of 2024, State vs. Anurag, pending in the court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO, District Haridwar, under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) & 506 IPC and Section 3(a)/4(2), 5(1)/6 of POCSO Act. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR is delayed one; inasmuch as, there is delay of five years and the applicant has been implicated in the present case just to pressurize him to withdraw his name as a witness in a murder case undergoing against the prosecutrix for which she is in 1 2025:UHC:40 jail. 4. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is a student and has a good reputation in society. He also contends that it is quite impossible that the applicant raped the prosecutrix for five years and she did not raise hue and cry. It is further contended that neither any alleged obscene videos were recovered from the applicant. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that it is a heinous crime and a specific role to the applicant has been assigned in the charge-sheet. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire documents available on record. 7. From perusal of the FIR, prima facie, the commission of cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. In this view of the matter, this Court does not want to interfere in the matter as the law is very clear on the point that the inherent powers under Section 528 Cr.P.C. should be resorted to in the rarest of the rare cases. Accordingly, the application fails and is dismissed in-limine. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.01.2025 AK 2