Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114790 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20354 of 2025 Applicant :- Monu @ Utkarsh Kharwar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Tiwari,Praveen Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamlesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neelkanth Upadhyay, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the F.I.R. was lodged belatedly on 19.03.2024 two days after the alleged incident dated 17.03.2024. During investigation, on 20.03.2024, the I.O. recorded statements of the informant and victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the victim was sent for medical examination the same day. The medical report revealed no external injury, and the supplementary report dated 27.03.2024 confirmed that no spermatozoa were found. On 21.03.2024, the victim was produced before the Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she clearly stated that the act took place with her consent. On the same day, the I.O. also recorded the statement of the medical officer, Dr. Subha Tayal, who reiterated that no sperm was seen. The school principal confirmed that the victim was born on 01.07.2008 and was a student of class 8th. Despite the absence of medical evidence of force and the victim’s voluntary statement, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet on 29.03.2024 in a mechanical manner. The applicant was granted bail by this Hon’ble Court on 05.07.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17827 of 2024. However, without proper judicial appreciation of the facts and evidence on record, the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Chandauli, proceeded to frame charges on 20.09.2024 in Session Trial No. 256 of 2024 under Section 376(3) I.P.C. and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, which is wholly arbitrary, unsustainable in law, and liable to be set aside along with the entire criminal proceedings. 3. Learned A.G.A. opposed the application and submits that the applicant has efficacious alternative remedy of filing a revision before the court below. To buttress his arguments, learned A.G.A. has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Dharmatma Singh vs. Harminder Singh & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.1126 of 2011, (2011) 3 RCR (Criminal) 38. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. From a perusal of the record, this Court finds that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to challenge the framing of charges by the learned trial court. The applicant seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court without first availing the statutory remedy of revision provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharmatma Singh vs. Harminder Singh & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.1126 of 2011, (2011) 3 RCR (Criminal) 38, has held as under: "13. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It has been held by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866] that Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (which corresponds to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and such inherent power cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code and therefore where the Magistrate has not applied his mind under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. to the merits of the reports and passed order, the High Court ought not to consider a request for quashing the proceedings." 7. In light of the above judgment and the settled legal position that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court should be exercised sparingly where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed, with liberty to the applicant to avail appropriate remedy as may be available under law. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad