Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114991 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21101 of 2025 Applicant :- Shubham Mishra @ Bhanu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Dubey,Ram Milan Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Raksha Tiwari Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Milan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1, Sri Ram Raksha Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants praying for quashing the charge order dated 12.12.2024, under Sections 354, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 & 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Banda in Special Sessions Trial No.157 of 2023 (State v. Shubham Mishra @ Bhanu) passed by Additional Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-1st, Banda arising out of Case Crime No.28 of 2023 presently pending before it. 3. In the instant matter, an FIR was lodged by O.P. no.2 against the applicant and one unknown person on 07.02.2023 alleging that the applicant and one unknown person has molested and tried to abduct his minor daughter while she was coming back from School with him, on raising alarm they ran away. In the said case, after investigation chargesheet was filed and the applicant was summoned and the trial is going on. During the course of trial charges were framed against the applicant under Sections 354, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 & 7/8 POCSO Act, which has been assailed by means of instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as per educational documents the age of the victim was 17 years and 6 months at the time of incident, hence, no offence under Section 3/4 & 7/8 POCSO Act is made out. He further submits that the charges have wrongly been framed against the applicant and the instant proceeding is nothing else but a pure abuse of process of law. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the application and contended that the submissions made by the applicant that the victim was 17 years and 6 months of age at the time of incident can only be decided after adducing evidence before the trial court. He further submits that the charges have rightly been framed, if the applicant has any objection, he will have an opportunity to put up this defence in the trial. He also submits that no educational certificate as claimed by the applicant has been filed along with the instant application. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court is of the view that once there is no educational certificate/documentary evidence enclosed by the applicant in support of his averments, the averments made by the cannot be relied by this Court. 7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. However, it is open for the applicants to take all its defence in the trial. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 S.P. Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad