Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31891 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3614 of 2025 Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Bachan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Virendra Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Bachan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Muniraj Mehrotra, learned AGA for the State and Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla for opposite party No. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 13.03.2024, Cognizance/summoning order dated 22.07.2024 and entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 154 of 2024 (State Vs. Ravindra Kumar Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2024, under Section, 354A IPC and Section 9F/10 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)Va of SC/ST Act, P.S. Barsathi, District Jaunpur, pending in the Court of learned Special Session Judge/POCSO-I, Jaunpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a first information report stood lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicant herein on 07.03.2024 under Section 354Ka IPC, Section 9F and 10 of the POCSO Act read with Section 3(2)Va of the SC/ST Act with an allegation that on 06.03.2024, the victim who happens to be the daughter of the first informant being a minor was studying in a Madhyamic Vidyalaya and the applicant who happens to be the Head Master of the said institution exhibited a conduct of outraging the modesty of the daughter of the first informant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the narration contained in the first information report the applicant was taken to the police custody, however, while inviting attention towards page 28 of the paper book it is being sought to be contended that on 07.03.2024, a communication has been made by the Circle Officer to the SHO for arrest of the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated as the victim is not the student of the said institution and in this regard, he seeks to rely upon the information received under RTI which according to it shows that the applicant is student of another institution. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that pursuant to the proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C relatable to commission of offences against the applicant on 06.03.2024 for creating ruckus and also for administering beating and injuries first information report stood lodged on 14.09.2024 under Sections 147, 504, 332, 353, 506, 427 392 being FIR No. 0255 of 2024. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, just in order to exert pressure to withdraw the said FIR when the applicant did not succumb to the said pressure then the impugned FIR has been sought to be lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that even the cook, Sita Devi had shown her ignorance about the said incident and her mother (elder) Usha Devi had also not shown the involvement of the applicant. 4. Submission is that first of all none of the offences under Section 3(2)Va stands attracted and further it is a case of false implication and also roping the applicant to the criminality, he seeks to rely upon the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Vs. State of U.P. and others (2023) 0 INSC 687, Mohammad Wajid & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others (2023) 0 Supreme(SC) 690 & Hasmukhlal D. Vora & another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu: Criminal Appeal No. 2310 of 2022 so as to contend that the proceedings cannot be permitted to be proceeded against the applicant. 5. Learned AGA as well as the counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2, Sri Shukla has countered the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant according to him, the narration of the allegations contained in the first information report lodged by the mother of the victim who is minor itself shows that offences are made out so far as the statements of Smt. Sheela Devi and Usha Devi are concerned, they itself depicts nothing else but one fact that some incident occurred on 06.03.2024 according to them, the theory so sought to be propounded by the applicant that the victim is not a student stands exploded from the fact that there happens to be a statement of the opposite party No. 2 which itself shows that the victim was studying in Mumbai till V and thereafter she came to the place where the institution is situated, however, it was assured that the admission would be granted in the next ensuing academic session, however, she was allowed to attend the school for education. It is further contended on behalf of the opposite party while inviting attention towards page 36 of the paper book that the victim herself in the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has deposed that bad act was committed by applicant 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 7. The first and foremost question which falls for consideration is that stage and the extent of interference in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure once a charge sheet stood submitted. Apparently, the allegations contained in the first information report is relatable to the offences under Section 9F/10 of the POCSO Act read with Section 3(2)Va of the SC/ST Act and Section 354 of the IPC. What is required is the fact that as to whether there is any contradiction in the statement under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis in the first information report. 8. Interestingly, the victim had herself in statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. deposed that offences have been committed and she has been subjected to outraging of modesty and bad act further, the first informant has also deposed the said fact. As regards the theory of counter blast so sought to be shown is concerned, the same can at best in the facts and circumstances when the allegations have pin pointed be a defence and the same cannot overrule the possibility of an incident occurred on 06.03.2024 particularly when there is an FIR with cross version. Apart from the same, the another theory sought to be propounded that the victim was not a student of the said institution wherein the applicant was working was working as a Head Master is concerned, the first informant in statement under Section 161 herself deposed that the victim though was not admitted but she was attending the classes on the assurance that in the ensuing session admission would be granted. The said fact has been disputed by the applicant while relying upon the information under RTI that the victim is student of another institution but this Court at this stage is not required to go into the said factual aspect particularly when the stage of trial has not arrived. So far as the reliance and reference to the judgment in the case of Salib @ Shalu @ Salim (supra), Mohammad Wajid (supra) & Hasmukhlal D. Vora (supra) are concerned, there is no quarrel to the proposition of law that the Courts while entertaining the applications U/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have to analyze the contents of the FIR and the statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. along with the ground realities and attending circumstances but the said judgments are not distinguishable and would not apply in the present case particularly when the allegations itself shows commission of the offences. 9. Accordingly, interference is declined, the application is consigned to record. 10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant shall prefer a discharge application and a direction be issued to consider the same. 11. According to learned AGA, in case, the discharge application is maintainable then the same can be decided. 12. In the opinion of the Court once a discharge application which is permissible and maintainable under law is preferred then this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be decided with most expedition. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad