HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13949 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and Sri Umesh Kumar Pal, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant application has been preferred with a prayer to quash chargesheet dated 15.07.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 14.02.2025 along with entire proceedings of Session Case No.102 of 2025 (State Vs. Sajan Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No.92 of 2024, under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Lar, District Deoria, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.1, Deoria. 3. Learned counsel for applicants has challenged the entire proceedings of present case along with impugned chargesheet as well as summoning/cognizance order on several other grounds inter-alia precisely on the ground that the allegations which have been levelled against applicants through the FIR, has been completely denied by victim herself through her statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 IPC. Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that by bare perusal of the said statements of victim, no offence is made out against applicants and as such, entire proceedings of present case along with impugned chargesheet as well as summoning/cognizance order, may be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and submitted that after conducting the detailed inquiry, chargesheet has been Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Virendra Kumar Kori, Virendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Umesh Kumar Pal, G.A. Sajan Yadav And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) submitted by the concerned Investigating Officer whereupon considering the material on record, learned trial court taken cognizance and as such, there is no illegality in the order impugned but did not dispute the fact that the allegations which have been levelled against applicants through the FIR, has been completely denied by victim herself through her statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 IPC. 5. Be that as it may, since the applicants are having liberty to prefer discharge application before the learned court concerned taking all the pleas and grounds which have been raised herein. 6. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the issue, the present petition is hereby disposed of finally permitting the applicant no.4 to prefer discharge application before the learned court concerned through his counsel taking all pleas and grounds, which have been taken through the instant application, within four weeks from today alongwith certified copy of this order. If such application is filed by applicant no.4 before learned court concerned, the court concerned shall consider and decide the said application, strictly in accordance with law, by speaking and reasoned order and by affording proper opportunity of hearing to the concerning parties. However, it is made clear that till the disposal of the discharge application, applicant no.4 shall not be compelled to appear in person pursuant to the aforesaid criminal case. 7. In sofar as applicant nos.1, 2 and 3 are concerned, they shall appear before learned court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail. In case, they prefer bail application within the said period, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825).. However, it is made clear that till three weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant nos.1, 2 and 3 in pursuance of aforesaid case. September 15, 2025 Vivek Kr. NA528 No. 13949 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad