Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103974 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22349 of 2025 Applicant :- Pintu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sapna Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anand Kumar Pandey,G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Shaurya Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State-opposite party and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of Charge- sheet, dated 06.10.2022 as well as entire proceedings registered in its pursuance (State of U.P. vs. Pintu), arising out of Case Crime No. 210 of 2022, under section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, including impugned order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court in the proceedings of above mentioned criminal case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under section 363 I.P.C., thereafter, the applicant was arrested and he was enlarged on bail. Police after completing investigation filed charge-sheet on 06.10.2022. Upon which learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summoning order against the applicant on 14.05.2024, the same is assailed by means of the instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that only on the basis of examination-in-chief, applicant has been summoned under section 376 I.P.C. as well as section 5/6 POCSO Act. He further submits that the statement of victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 26.09.2022 in which victim had not supported the prosecution version and had said that she eloped with the applicant out of her own sweet will and no sexual harassment was done with her. He further submits that in examination-in-chief was recorded after lapse of two years and because of which the statement of victim got changed due to pressure and she levelled allegation of sexual assault against the applicant. He further submits that summoning order is contrary to the provisions contained in section 216(3) of Cr.P.C., court only relied on the facts of the case while issuing the summoning order. He further submits that there is contradiction in the medical examination. He further submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is a sheer abuse of the process of the law, as the summoning order has been passed, therefore, the entire criminal proceedings require to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA have submitted that on the date of incident the victim was minor as she was born on 01.02.2006 and the date of incident is 05.09.2022. They further submitted that victim has stated that about 17 to 18 days she has been sexually assaulted by administering some intoxicated substance, therefore the charges have been altered. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicant and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings. 6. Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, prima facie, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The summoning order dated 14.05.2024 has been issued after looking the statement of examination-in-chief. 7. The argument raised by 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. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and in the cases of 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. 9. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgements 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. 10. However it is open for the applicant to take all its defence in the trial. 11. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Bhanu Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad