HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3776 of 2023 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. Heard Shri Paritosh Shukla, learned counsel for applicants, Shri Sanjay Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of summoning order dated 22.03.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Additional Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act), Court No. 3, Sultanpur (in short "trial Court") in Complaint Case No. 05 of 2021 (Smt. Anara Vs. Dinesh Harijan etc.) whereby the applicants have been summoned under Sections 376-D, 452 & 506 IPC and Section 5 (g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short "POCSO Act"), Police Station Kadipur, District Sultanpur. Prayer has also been sought to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that initially FIR of this case was lodged by opposite party no. 2 against the applicants on 18.06.2020 vide Case Crime No. 224 of 2020, under Sections 376-D, 452, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case was investigated and after recording the statement of complainant and statements of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Paritosh Shukla, Sukh Deo Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Shashank Agnihotri Ram Prakash Alias Prakash Harijan And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Cr.P.C., the final report was submitted. It has been submitted that the victim had denied the allegation of under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and deposed before the Court that her mother wrongly lodged the FIR against the applicants. She also refused to undergo medical examination. It has been further submitted that the police submitted final report on 23.06.2020 under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.. The proceedings under Section 182 IPC was also instituted against the complainant i.e. mother of the victim. It has been further submitted that to avoid the proceedings under Section 182 IPC the opposite party no. 2/complainant filed protest petition on 09.07.2021 and, thereafter, the case was treated as complaint case on protest petition vide order dated 23.07.2021. It has been further submitted that after recording the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the applicants have been summoned and the said summoning order is bad in the eyes of law for the reason that the complainant filed the protest petition just to settle her personal score because the proceedings under Section 182 IPC was initiated against her. . It has been further submitted that a bare perusal of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. indicates that there is no allegation of rape against the applicant and she has further gone to the extent that on wrong assumption, her mother lodged the complaint/application. It has been further submitted that on the protest petition filed by the complainant the case appears to be out of malice and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. On the other hand, Shri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that after recording the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. it is clear that the allegation of rape has been A482 No. 3776 of 2023 2 levelled by the victim herself along with her mother i.e. complainant. It has been further submitted that once the protest petition has been filed and the same has been treated as a criminal complaint case against the applicants, there is no illegality and infirmity in the summoning order. He has also relied on the judgment of this Court at Allahabad passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 3707 of 2004 in re: V.K. Rai and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, decided on 29.04.2019 and has submitted that the case of the applicants is covered by the aforesaid judgment. He has also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar, (2019) 6 SCC 107. After going through the records, I find that the statement of witness i.e. the victim under Section 202 Cr.P.C. makes out the offense against the applicants. It is a serous matter where the allegation of rape is levelled. The single testimony of witness/victim is also sufficient for conviction, therefore, this Court cannot go into the merits of the case, certainly, the trial is required. For the reasons aforesaid, the application is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. Interim order stands vacated. November 27, 2025 Mohit Singh/- A482 No. 3776 of 2023 3 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench