Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115791 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14027 of 2025 Applicant :- Suresh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Indra Jeet Yadav, learned AGA for the State. 2. This Court issued notices to the opposite party nos. 2 & 4 on 24.04.2025 and there is an office report dated 15.07.2025 shows that the notice has been served upon opposite party no.2 personally. 3. Till dictation of the order, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2. 4. This is an application filed U/s 528 BNSS for quashing the summoning order dated 05.03.2020 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit as well as entire proceeding of complaint case no. 100/2019 (Hirakali vs. Prabhat and Ors) U/s 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Madhau, Tanda, District Pilibhit pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a proceedings be initiated by the opposite party no.2 who happens to be the mother of the victim U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants and one other co-accused with an allegations that on 26.05.2019 at 05:00 in the evening, the opposite party no.2 being the mother of the victim had gone to the house of the neighbour and the victim who is 16 years old was alone and the applicant along with the other co-accused barged into the house of the opposite party no.2 and pounced upon the victim attempting to outraging the modesty of the victim and when resistance was shown, then the applicants herein along with the other accused hurled abuses and threatened to death. Even the earings which in the ear of the victim was also snatched and after hearing the hue and cry, the villagers came there along with the opposite party no.2 and a report was sought to be lodged but nothing happened, thus, a complaint was lodged on 27.05.2019 before the Superintendent of Police through registered post. A complaint was also lodged which came to be dismissed on account of non prosecution and, thereafter, the present proceedings stood lodged on 28.06.2019. Post recording of the statement U/s 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant section 202 Cr.P.C. of the victim, the applicants came to be summoned U/s 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act on 05.03.2020. Questioning the summoning order, the present application has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the entire allegations so sought to be levelled in the complaint itself are false and incorrect and bundle of lies for the simple reasons that no such incident occurred. The submission is that in case, the said incident occurred and the victim modesty is being sought to be outraged and she was injured then medical examination would have been done. However, no medical examination was done of the victim. Thus, adverse inference is to be drawn. However the submissions is that there are no independent witnesses barring the statement of the complainant of the opposite party no.2 who was even not present when the alleged incident occurred. The only statement is of the victim and in absence of any statement of independent witnesses, the theory so sought to be propounded by the prosecution is unbelievable. Further submission is that the date of birth of the victim is 27.02.1997 and the incident took place on 26.05.2019 thus, the victim was major hence the provisions under the POCSO Act could not have been put to service. The attention of the court invited towards annexure-6 at page 38 being a report issued by the Basic Shiksha Parishad of class-VIII. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the court below in a routine manner has summoned the applicant without recording any prima facie satisfaction in the application of the penal provisions. 7. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that what ever might be the summoning order happens to be of the year 2020 i.e. 05.03.2020 and as per the allegations levelled in the complaint vis- a-vis in the statement U/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. there are no material contradiction or variation so as to outrightly overrule the commissions of the offences. He submits that the allegations contained in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses are pin pointed against the applicant and so far as the age of the victim is concerned the same is a subject the matter of trial which would require evidence and mere non subjection to the medical would not be be fatal. 8. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 9. Apparently, at the instance of the applicant challenge has been raised to the summoning order whereby the applicant has been summoned U/s 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. There are certain criteria which have to be considered in order to determine whether the summoning order suffers from legal infirmity or not. Amongst others one of the criteria inevitably would be the nature of the allegations in the complaint and the statements U/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. In case there are no material contradiction and variation and the statement tilt towards the prosecution theory regarding application of the penal sections then the case becomes triable. At the stage of summoning, the court are not required to delve into the veracity and the merit of the allegations. Applying the said principles of law in the present facts of the case, it is more than evident that a complaint was lodged regarding attempt to outrage the modesty of the victim while pin pointing the allegations against the applicants. The statements of the complainant U/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. of the victim are pin pointed and so much so the victim in her statement has specifically assigned the role to the applicant for attempting to outrage the modesty. Thus, the case become triable. 10. As regards the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants that since the victim was not subjected to medical examination, thus, proceedings would fail is not conceivable particularly when the import and the ramification of non subjection of the victim to medical examination which would need consideration at a stage when the trial commences when a decision is to be taken whether the accused is to be acquitted or convicted. With respect to the issue relatable to the age of the victim is concerned, this court at the stage of summoning in absence of convincible material is not required to delve into the said issue as the same would require evidence and the stage whereof has not arisen. In so far as the argument made by learned counsel for the applicant that the age of the applicant no.1 is 54 years but it has been shown lesser in the complaint, the same would not make render the proceedings invalid as the same may be a ground which may attribute at best as a defence, consideration whereof would arise post conduction of the trial. Lastly, the submission of the counsel for the applicant that the summoning order has been passed in a routine manner is concerned, the same is meritless particularly the curt below while summoning the applicant had taken into account and considered the allegations in the complaint and the statements U/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. 11. Cumulatively analysing the case in the four corners of law, no good ground is made for interference at the stage of summoning. Accordingly the interference is declined and the present application is consigned to record. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 C. MANI Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad