Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110089 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22996 of 2025 Applicant :- Deepak Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, 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 30.09.2024 under sections 504, 506 IPC including entire proceedings of Case no.3227/IX/2024 (State of U.P. vs. Arun Kumar Mishra and others), P.S.Mahila Thana, District-Banda arising out of Case Crime no.35 of 2024, under section 323, 376, 420, 504, 506 IPC pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd District Banda 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 the applicant on 12.06.2024 wherein it has been alleged that victim was working as Relationship Manager at Yes Bank in Delhi where the accused persons have offered her a job at higher salary as well as place of stay. The offer was too tempting, so the victim joined the post and thereafter the accused persons committed rape on her after administering some intoxicating substance to her. After recording evidence and completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 30.09.2024 and thereafter, cognizance has been taken on 22.11.2024. The chargesheet along with the entire proceedings of the case have been assailed by means of the instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the case diary, Call Detail Record (CDR) of the applicant was not considered. He further submits that the concerned Magistrate has issued summons to the applicant vide various orders but there is no entry in the order sheet that the summons were issued or handed over to the process server. He further submits that the I.O. approached the applicant on his mobile but could not trace out his address, even thought the concerned Magistrate has issued bailalable warrnat without service of summons on him. He next submits that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that the victim in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated against the applicant. 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 22.11.2024 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 :- 10.7.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad