Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101153 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20178 of 2025 Applicant :- Manvendra Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anita Singh,Kumari Poonam Rajpoot,Prem Babu Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Prakash,G.A.,Padmaker Pandey Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Anita Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri, Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 24-03-2025 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 28992 of 2025, arising out of case crime no. 16 of 2025, under Section 64(2) M and 351(2) of BNS, P.S. Nababganj, district Kanpur Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire prosecution case is a result of malice and personal vendetta. It is contended that the F.I.R. dated 20.01.2025 lodged by the opposite party no. 2 is entirely false, fabricated, and lodged with an ulterior motive to pressurize the applicant for monetary gain, especially after she came to know about his proposed marriage. The applicant was already granted interim protection by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 3726 of 2025, wherein arrest was stayed. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix is a major, married woman and has lodged multiple complaints previously under different versions, including a contradictory medical report. The learned court below, however, without proper judicial scrutiny of the facts and ignoring the applicant's innocence, has illegally taken cognizance on a mechanically submitted charge sheet dated 16.03.2025, and summoned the applicant vide impugned order dated 24.03.2025. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. submitted that from perusal of the F.I.R. it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. They further submitted that the court below has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the applicant and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant are all disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court. 7. 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. However, it is open for the applicant to take all its defence in the trial. 10. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad