Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85014 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17907 of 2025 Applicant :- Chandralok Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bhanu Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 2. This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 85 of 2025, titled State of U.P. v. Kamlesh Singh alias Vicky Singh and Others, registered under sections 70(1), 351(3), and 89 of the B.N.S. and section 5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,, at Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia, which is presently pending before the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 8, Ballia. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants invited the attention of the Court on two facts: (i) that during the course of investigation, the applicants were exonerated and no adverse findings were recorded against them; despite this, summons have been issued against them, which is contrary to law, and (ii) the cognizance of the offence cannot be taken by the Court at the stage of investigation in absence of sufficient material implicating the applicants. On the strength of the above submissions, the applicants seek quashing of the impugned summoning order. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application, drawing the Court's attention to the serious nature of the allegations made by the victim. It is submitted that the victim, who was allegedly subjected to sexual exploitation from the age of 14, was a student at the institution owned and managed by the applicants. It is further argued that the impugned order is legally sustainable and does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State, and having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicants, this Court is of the prima facie view that the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 70(1), 351(3), and 89 of the B.N.S., and Sections 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act, are attracted. 6. So far as the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are concerned, it can be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Similarly no such illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out in the impugned summoning order, so as to warrant any interference by this court in exercise of powers under section 528 B.N.S.S. 7. The application is devoid of merits, and it is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Shafique Vinod Diwakar, J. Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad