HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9570 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application has been filed with the following prayer:- "To quash the entire criminal proceeding of Session Case No.375 of 2023 (State Vs. Amit Shukla) arising out of Crime No.359 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4, 16/17 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Subeha, District- Barabanki pending in the court of Addl. District and Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.-44, Barabanki as well as the impugned charge-sheet dated 03.01.2023 and impugned order dated 17.02.2023." 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and the victim were in association and she left her house on her own wish and joined the company of the applicant. Thereafter, they entered into marriage. He further submits that due to annoyance, the F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by the father of the victim with the allegations that his daughter was enticed away by the applicant and at the time of leaving the house, she has also taken away amount of Rs. 2 lakhs in cash alongwith some ornaments. The victim appeared before the Investigating Officer and after recording her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she was allowed to go with her parents. The victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, in which, she has given the same version Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vineet Kumar Pandey, Pradeep Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Amit Shukla .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The victim's ossification test was also conducted. He next submits that the charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer without considering the victim's statement as well as without considering her age, which is found to be 17 years. He lastly submits that the school document was also not considered by the Investigating Officer, hence, indulgence of this Court is required. 4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that after taking cognizance, charge was framed against the applicant and then the trial was proceeded. He further submits that four witnesses have already been examined before learned trial court and at this stage, the quashing of the charge-sheet is not maintainable. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the trial is going on and four witnesses have already been examined. At this stage, no interference is required. 6. With the above observations, the application, being misconceived, is dismissed. December 2, 2025 Arpan A482 No. 9570 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench