HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23215 of 2025 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J. 1. Heard Mr. V.M. Zaidi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M.J. Akhtar, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. representing State respondents 1 & 2 and Mr. Rajeev Ratan Shukla, the learned counsel representing first informant respondent 3. 2. Perused the record. 3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the FIR dated 01.09.2025 lodged by Manda Devi first informant respondent 3 and registered as Case Crime No. 385 of 2025, under Sections 74 of BNS-2023 and 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S.- Mandiyahu, District- Jaunpur. 4. Mr. V.M. Zaidi, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned FIR is wholly malicious. Since the petitioner who is Principal of the institution had taken disciplinary action by calling the prosecutrix in his chamber for not coming to school in proper dress consequently criminal prosecution has been initiated. He therefore contends that in view of above impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that by virtue of the provision contained in Section 8 of the POCSO Act the maximum sentence which can be awarded to the petitioner is five years. Therefore, drawing sustenance from the judgment of Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : M J Akhtar, Neeta Shukla, Sarita Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Munender Kumar Gaur, Rajeev Ratan Shukla Vinod Dubey .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) (2022) 10 SCC 51, he submits that in above some protection be granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner. 5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State respondents 1 & 2 and Mr. Rajeev Ratan Shukla, the learned counsel representing first informant respondent 3 have vehemently opposed the present writ petition. They submit that considering the nature and gravity of offence coupled with the fact that the prosecutrix are innocent and young girls below 18 years of age, and therefore a child within the meaning of the term child in term of Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, no interference is warranted by this Court. 6. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. representing State respondents 1 & 2 the learned counsel representing first informant respondent 3 and upon perusal of record but without making any comment on the merits of the case, we find that the impugned FIR clearly discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Apart from above by virtue of the provision contained in Section 29 of the POCSO Act, there is a statutory presumption regarding the occurrence having taken place. Simply on the basis of submissions urged by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner we find that the prosecution story as unfolded in the above FIR cannot be disbelieved. 7. In view of above, we do not find any good or sufficient ground to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. 8. It is accordingly dismissed. October 14, 2025 Sharad/- CRLP No. 23215 of 2025 2 (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad