Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19062 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3847 of 2025 Applicant :- Pravindra Maurya @ Pravendra Kumar Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 06.09.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) (Exclusive), Jaunpur, in Sessions Trial No. 195 of 2021, State v. Praveen Maurya, arising out of Case Crime No. 57 of 2021, registered under Section 354-B of IPC and Sections 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, at Police Station Zafrabad, District Jaunpur. The case is presently pending before the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act)-Ist, Jaunpur. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case due to mala fide intention by the investigating officer. It is further argued that the victim was not a minor at the time of the alleged incident. In support of this claim, reliance is placed on an RTI response from the relevant department, which records the victim's father as deceased on 26.11.2000. It is submitted that at that time, the victim was 4 years old, and accordingly, her date of birth should be calculated as 17 years and 9 months after her father's demise, which would establish her as a major at the time of the alleged incident. 4. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions and contends that the victim's age has been duly determined based on official records. It is argued that the investigating officer, during the course of the investigation, obtained the victim's school records, including her Class-V certificate, which explicitly mentions her date of birth as 27.9.2009. The victim's minority at the time of the incident has been duly recognized in the charge sheet and other case documents. It is further submitted that the claim of the applicant is based on an inference drawn from an RTI response, which cannot override the official school records and statutory provisions governing age determination. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A., and after carefully perusing the record, prima facie, it appears that the determination of the victim's age is a factual issue requiring proper adjudication based on evidence. The RTI response relied upon by the applicant does not conclusively establish the victim's age in contradiction to the school records obtained by the investigating officer. The evaluation of such contradictory claims is a matter to be decided by the trial court upon due appreciation of evidence. 6. However, the question of the victim's age is a factual dispute that requires assessment of evidence, which falls within the domain of the trial court. Proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not meant for adjudicating such factual controversies. The investigating officer has already collected the victim's Class-V certificate, which records her date of birth as 27.9.2009. In view of this documentary evidence and the statutory presumption under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the claim of the applicant regarding the victim's age cannot be entertained at this stage. 7. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is made out. 8. The instant application is devoid of merits, and is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Anil K. Sharma Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad