Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85046 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18024 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Shaloo Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused material on record. 2. The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 28.09.2024 and summoning order dated 29.10.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Case No. 90017 of 2024, titled State v. Sandeep Sonkar and others, arising out of Case Crime No.259 of 2024, under Sections 376, 313, 509, 506, 323 IPC, P.S. Sigra, District Varanasi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to ulterior motives. There is an unexplained and inordinate delay of four years in the lodging of the FIR, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version. No cogent or satisfactory explanation has been given for delay in lodging the FIR, which vitiates the credibility of the allegations. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, which undermine the prosecution case. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant and the victim were known to each other, being students of the same college, and were involved in a consensual relationship. The medical report neither indicates any external or internal injuries on the person of the victim, nor does it establish forcible sexual relationship. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the order dated 09.04.2025, passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein proceedings against co-accused were stayed. The investigating officer has not conducted the investigation fairly and impartially and filed charge sheet against the applicant. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the application and submitted that the victim, in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, has categorically stated that she was subjected to rape by the applicant. It is urged there are specific and direct allegations qua applicant disclosing commission of a cognizable offence. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has also opposed the application, endorsing the submissions of the complainant's counsel, and has submitted that the charge sheet is based on sufficient material collected during investigation, which prima facie makes out a case against the applicant for the offences alleged. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and having gone through the material on record, its prima facie observed that the victim, in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, has made specific, clear, and consistent allegations of rape and other offences against the applicant. The charge sheet has been filed under Sections 376, 313, 509, 506, and 323 of the IPC, based on the said statements, medical report, and other material evidence. At this stage, it cannot be said that the proceedings are either maliciously instituted or that no offence is disclosed. Therefore, no case for quashing the aforesaid proceeding is made out. 8. In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may 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 proceeding 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 u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 9. The application is found to be devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. 10. The observation made herein above shall not have any bearing on the merit of the case during trial. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 A. Tripathi Vinod Diwakar,J. Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad