Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57616 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 578 of 2025 Applicant :- Thakur Das And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicants-Thakur Das And Another, who are charge sheeted accused and facing trial before Court below, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:- "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and quash the Order of Framing of Charges dt. 12.07.2024, U/S 376-D I.P.C. & 5(g)/6 POCSO Act (Annexure-8) as well as entire proceedings of P.S.T.No. 1592/2024 (Arising out of Case Crime No. 567/2022); State of U.P. Vs. Thakur Das & others pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge/ Addl. Special Judge (POCSO Act)-1, Firozabad against the applicants. It is further prayed that further proceedings of P.S.T.No. 1592/2024 (Arising out of Case Crime No. 567/2022), U/S 376-D L.P.C. & 5(g)/6 POCSO Act; State of U.P. Vs. Thakur Das & others pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge/ Addl. Special Judge (POCSO Act)-I, Firozabad may kindly be stayed till the pendency of present application. And/or pass such other and further order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in circumstances of the case." 4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that framing of charge order passed by Court below is manifestly illegal. Referring to the material on record, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicants that since it was discovered during the course of investigation that prosecutrix had studied upto Class 8, therefore, the recital occurring in her statement under Section 161/164 Cr.P.C. that she is an illiterate lady makes the prosecution story unworthy of acceptance. On the above premise, he, therefore, contends that no credence can be attached to the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. 5. Apart from above, it is further pointed out by the learned counsel for applicants that prosecutrix in her aforementioned statements has stated that her modesty was repeatedly dislodged in the last six months. However, neither the day, date and time nor place of occurrence have been mentioned in her aforesaid statements. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for applicants therefore, submits that criminal prosecution of applicants cannot be sustained. As such, impugned framing of charge order passed by Court below is liable to be quashed by this Court. 6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party has vehemently opposed the present application. Learned A.G.A. submits that it is by now well settled that at pre-trial stage Court cannot conduct a mini trial. He has referred to the following judgements of Supreme Court in (i). Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217 (paragraph 11), (ii). Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2023 (Okansh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided on 03.08.2023 (paragraph 29) and (iii) Vijaya Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3510 (paragraph 31). The prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has fully supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR. This Court while considering the veracity of the framing of charge order passed by Court below cannot examine the truthfullness of the said statements. The same is the subject matter of trial. At this stage, only a prima-facie case is to be seen. 7. Apart from above, the learned A.G.A. further contends that the law with regard to the discharge of an accused/framing of charge against accused by Court now stands crystallized by the judgment of Supreme Court in Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and Another, 2019 SCC Online Sc 1053. As per the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court, the trial of an accused can be sustained provided that; A. As per the papers accompanying the charge sheet/police report submitted by the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the commission of an offence is disclosed against accused, B. As per the aforesaid, there is evidence against accused, C. There is grave suspicion against accused. 8. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that no case for interference by this Court is made out inasmcuh as, the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has clearly supported the FIR and implicated the applicants in the crime in question. Therefore, the issue as to whether the applicants shall be deemed to be innocent in view of the false statements made by the prosecutrix as alleged by the learned counsel for applicants is itself a triable issue, which can be decided only during the course of trial. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. 9. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are not only borne out from the record, but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 11. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 12. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Imtiyaz Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad