Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103570 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21200 of 2025 Applicant :- Sultan Alias Munawar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Gautam,Rohit Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri R.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri N.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicants praying for quashing chargesheet dated 27.04.2024 along with cognizance order dated 16.07.2024 in S.T. No.340 of 2024 (State vs. Sultan @ Munawar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.87 of 2024, P.S.Sikrara, District-Jaunpur, u/s 366, 376, 506, 120B IPC against applicant no.1 and u/s 366, 506, 120B IPC against applicant nos.2 and 3 pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 1st Jaunpur or to stay further proceedings of the case during pendency of the application. 3. In the instant matter, an FIR was lodged by O.P. no.2 against applicant no.1 on 11.04.2024 wherein it has been alleged that daughter of informant, who had gone to Pratapganj Jaunpur Degree College on 08.04.2024 at 11.30 A.M. for studying, has gone missing and despite hectic search she could not be traced out. However, the victim was recovered by the I.O. on 13.04.2024 and statements of the victim as well as the informant and other witnesses was recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, on 27.04.2024, charge sheet has been submitted against applicant no.1 u/s 366, 376, 506, 120B IPC and against applicant nos.2 and 3 u/s 366, 506, 120B IPC. Thereafter, court below has taken cognizance on 16.07.2024. The chargesheet as well as cognizance order have been challenged in this application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that allegedly the incident took place on 08.04.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on 11.04.2024 i.e. delay about 3 days without any proper explanation of delay. He submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further argued that the real fact is that the victim, who is major, and applicant no.1 were having love affair and the victim has left her house on her own will. Applicant nos.2 and 3 are parents of applicant no.1, who have been falsely implicated in this case. He next contended that the instant proceedings is nothing else but a pure abuse of process of law. Further submission is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. He also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that the victim in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that applicant no.1 has been pressurizing her mentally for the last one year to marry him. It is further submitted that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings. 6. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicants. The cognizance order dated 16.07.2024 has been issued after perusing the material collected during investigation of the case. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants to take all its defence in the trial. 10. Hence, the instant application cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad