Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90025 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19072 of 2025 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Alias Birendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Chandra Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kalp Dev Mishra Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the material available on record. 2. The present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 04.10.2024, the summoning and cognizance order dated 18.11.2024, as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 1043 of 2024, State v. Amit Kumar @ Birendra Kumar, arising out of Case Crime No. 0021 of 2024, registered under Sections 376, 504, and 506 of IPC, and Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghazipur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the FIR was lodged with mala fide intention, after the applicant secured government employment at DAV Intermediate College, Ghazipur, in 2021. It is alleged that the FIR was lodged in collusion with the victim's father with the ulterior motive of coercing the applicant into a matrimonial alliance. It is further submitted that the allegations in the FIR are vague, inconsistent, and not supported by any cogent material. The investigating officer had asked the victim to produce corroborative evidence such as photographs and videos, but she failed to do so. It is further submitted that there is a significant embellishment in the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in comparison to her initial version, particularly regarding the allegation of being pressured to undergo abortion, which is not supported by any medical evidence. It is further submitted that the victim, aged around 27 years at the time of lodging the FIR, was in a consensual relationship with the applicant, and the complaint was made only after the applicant allegedly refused to marry her. It is also submitted that the victim is an educated adult, and the narrative in the FIR is ex facie implausible. 4. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the victim, who was a student of the applicant, had been taking private tuition from him since 2013. It is alleged that on 12.06.2013, at around 6:00 p.m., when the victim went to the applicant's residence, she was subjected to aggravated sexual assault. At that time, the victim was 16 years old. It is further alleged that she was repeatedly subjected to sexual exploitation under the false promise of marriage. 5. The Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down the principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 B.N.S.S.). It has been held that where the allegations made in the FIR or the material collected during investigation, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any offence, or where the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with ulterior motives, the Court may intervene to prevent abuse of the process of law. 6. Upon a prima facie evaluation of the record, it appears that the essential ingredients constituting offences under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, and Section 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act are disclosed. The FIR and subsequent materials on record indicate that the victim was a minor (aged 16 years) at the relevant time and had been subjected to sexual assault while under the guardianship and influence of the applicant, her tutor. The allegations of repeated sexual assault, under the pretext of a future marriage, cannot be summarily brushed aside at the stage of consideration under Section 528 B.N.S.S. The factual disputes raised by the applicant regarding consent, delay in lodging the FIR, and the alleged consensual nature of the relationship, pertain to the realm of defence, and require detailed examination of evidence during trial. Such contentions cannot be adjudicated upon in summary proceedings under Section 528 B.N.S.S., which are confined to examining whether the proceedings are an abuse of the process of law or otherwise lack the basic ingredients of the offence alleged. 7. Considering the totality of circumstances and in view of the settled legal position, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for quashing the proceedings at this stage. 8. The instant application is devoid of merits, and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 A.N. Mishra (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad