Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115449 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15638 of 2025 Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pavan Kumar Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashutosh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri K.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1, Sri Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants praying for quashing the chargesheet, cognizance order dated 12.07.2024, as well as entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.737 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.51 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376(D), 504, 406 IPC read with Section 5(Chha)/6 POCSO Act and Section 3(1) (Da), 3 (1) (Dha), 3(2) (V) of SC/ST Act (State v. Arjun @ Anuj Sharma and others), P.S. Bilsanda, Pilibhit passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Pilibhit. 3. In the instant matter, an FIR was lodged by the victim/informant against the applicant on 01.03.2024 alleging that when the victim was minor, she become friend of one Vasudeval @ Shagun through Instagram, after sometime the co- accused Vasudeval @ Shagun called her at bus stand and took her out of station where, Vasudeval @ Shagun and his friend Arjun and some unknown persons forcefully raped her and made a video and threatened to post the video on Social Media if any complaint is made, thereafter, they dropped her at the same bus stand. In the said matter after investigation, chargesheet has been filed and summons have been issued on 12.07.2024. The entire proceedings have been challenged in this application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per educational certificates the victim was major as her age was 18 years at the time of incident. The FIR has been lodged with unexplained delay of two months. The applicant was not named in the FIR, his name was disclosed later on in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. while she herself is informant. He next contended that the instant proceedings is nothing else but a pure abuse of process of law. Further submission is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalu Yadav v. The State of U.P. & Ors (Criminal Appeal No. of 2024, arising out of SLP (Crl) No.9371 of 2018. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the application and contended that the version of FIR completely corroborates the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the name of the applicant has been disclosed in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings. 6. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicants. The cognizance order has been issued after perusing the material collected during investigation of the case. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants are all disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 7. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicants. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not. 9. Hence, the instant application cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. However, it is open for the applicants to take all its defence in the trial. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 S.P. Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad