HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11473 of 2025 Court No. - 85 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondent, and perused the material available on record. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No. 123 of 2025 (Shahanawaz v. State of U.P.), as well as the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Small Causes Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 665 of 2024 ( State v. Shahanawaz (Aarakshi)), arising out of Case Crime No. 473 of 2023, under Sections 323, 506, 376(2)(n), and 313 IPC, registered at Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is argued that the FIR was lodged nearly three years after the alleged incident and only after the petitioner's marriage in January 2023. During the relevant period, the petitioner was residing separately on rent and performing his official duties. The informant, a neighbour, allegedly had only limited public interactions with him. It is further submitted that during the investigation no credible or corroborative evidence was found against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the medical report dated 11.08.2021 pertains to a woman who complained of bleeding due to self- medication for heat, contradicts the prosecution's version. No medical and ocular evidence supports the allegation under Section 313 IPC, and no witness has corroborated the FIR. The FIR is alleged to be motivated by malice, filed with the intent to coerce the petitioner into marriage and extract a monetary settlement following his lawful marriage and the birth of his Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abad Ali Tyagi, Gurfan Ali Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Shahanawaz .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) child in November 2023. 4. In response, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the FIR discloses serious cognizable offences, including under Sections 376(2)(n) and 313 IPC. The matter has been duly investigated and a charge sheet has been submitted. The veracity of the petitioner's claims involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be examined at the pre-trial stage and the same may be ascertained during the trial. It is further submitted that the impugned orders suffer from no legal infirmity warranting interference under this Court's extraordinary jurisdiction. 5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record, including the FIR, witness statements, medical documents, and the impugned orders, this Court finds no manifest error in the orders passed by the courts below. The discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was erroneously filed before the Magistrate, who lacks the jurisdiction to entertain such an application; the proper forum for such relief lies before the Court of Sessions. Furthermore, the contentions raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which are appropriately to be determined by the trial court upon full appreciation of the evidence. 6. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible legal and factual defences before the trial court, which shall be considered strictly in accordance with law. October 6, 2025 Anil K. Sharma A227 No. 11473 of 2025 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad