Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87494 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12124 of 2025 Applicant :- Ajay Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Srivastava,Puneet Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashutosh Pandey,G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Puneet Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Jitendra Singh holding brief of Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 and learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash the cognizance order dated 19.03.2025 and charge sheet dated 26.02.2025 in Case no. 1346/2025 arising out of Case Crime no. 0595 of 2024, under sections 318(4), 351(3), 61(2), 308(5) BNS and 5l, 5n, 6 of POCSO Act, (State of U.P. vs. Harsh and others) PS- Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that opposite party no. 4 lodged FIR against applicants alleging therein that applicant no. 1 was driver of opposite party no. 4. Applicant no. 1 stole some money, jewellery and important documents from inside the hospital and house of opposite party no. 4. When this fact came into her knowledge, she fired applicant no. 1 from job. Thereafter, applicant no. 1 along with his two sons i.e. applicant nos. 2 and 3, under a planned conspiracy lured son of opposite party no. 4 and started extorting money from him and bought certain vehicles from said money. In pursuance to present FIR charge sheet dated 26.02.2025 has been submitted whereupon cognizance has been taken up by learned trial court vide order dated 19.03.2025 which has been challenged through instant application. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for applicants that in her statement victim/opposite party no. 4 stated that applicant no. 1 stole money and jewellery from inside her house many times but neither the victim nor her family members made any complaint against applicant no. 1. It is also relevant to point out that opposite party no. 4 did not disclose the date and time of the alleged offence and also there is no recovery of any stolen property. In statement of opposite party no. 4, she alleged that applicant nos. 2 and 3 also physically and sexually harassed her son but the victim neither made any complaint against them nor any evidence is available on entire Case Diary to prove it. It is next submitted that entire story is an afterthought, hence entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. 5. Sri Jitendra Singh holding brief of Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 6. From perusal of entire story developed in shape of narration available in the FIR which culminated into charge-sheet dated 26.02.2025, it is crystal clear that the immediate cause of action is missing, rather it seems as story developed as an afterthought once the applicant has been terminated from the services as a driver of opposite party no. 4 and as such matter needs consideration. 7. All the opposite parties are granted four weeks time for filing counter affidavit. Two weeks thereafter for rejoinder, if any. 8. List after exchange of pleadings. 9. Entire proceedings arising out of Case no. 1346/2025 arising out of Case Crime no. 0595 of 2024, under sections 318(4), 351(3), 61(2), 308(5) BNS and 5l, 5n, 6 of POCSO Act, (State of U.P. vs. Harsh and others) P.S.- Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur shall be kept in abeyance and the same will be dependent upon final outcome of the instant application. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad