Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 71398 (ALL)

NADEEM v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

NA528/23486/2025 · 2025-07-21

Prashant Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119322 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23486 of 2025 Applicant :- Nadeem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ankur Singh, 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 applicant praying for quashing entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No.2236 of 2024 (State vs. Nadeem and others) arising out of Case Crime No.208 of 2024, under section 328, 376, 354c, 406, 506 IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, P.S.Kotwali Nagar, District- Muzaffarnagar pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, POCSO Court no.1, Muzaffar Nagar wherevby charges have been framed against the applicant u/s 328, 376, 354c, 406, 506 IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act or to stay the effect and operation of order dated 19.10.2024 during pendency of the application. 3. In the instant matter, an FIR was lodged by O.P. no.2 against the applicant on 02.05.2024 wherein it has been alleged that the applicant has sexually exploited the informant pretending himself to be unmarried and government employee. It is further alleged that the applicant took cash Rs.35,000 and gold chain after blackmailing her to make viral her nude photos. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted on 18.06.2024 and after cognizance the trial commenced. During course of trial, applicant moved discharge application, which has been rejected vide order dated 18.11.2024 and thereafter vide order dated 06.02.2025 has framed charge against the applicant. The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case has been challenged by means of instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the order dated 06.02.2025 is per se illegal and bad in law. The court below has wrongly rejected the discharge application moved on behalf of the applicant and thereafter has proceeded to frame charge against the applicant. He next submitted that the court below has committed error in framing the charge against the applicant and it has failed to appreciate the basic fact that charges could only be framed once the basic ingredients to constitute such offence are available on record. He submitted that order whereby charges has been framed does not disclose any reasoning or basis upon which the trial court has framed charges. He submitted that the criminal prosecution of the applicant by way of impugned criminal proceedings is misuse of process of law and liable to be set aside at this stage. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that against framing of charges, application under section 528 BNSS is not maintainable. He submitted that the applicant has the remedy to prefer revision against the impugned order. He further argued that charges can be altered at any stage of trial. He further submitted that whether charges under section 376 IPC and other sections are attributable to the applicant or not, can only be adjudicated upon after adducing evidence during course of the trial. It is further submitted that the Court below has rightly passed the impugned order and no interference is required by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. 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 applicant. The cognizance order has been issued after perusing the material collected during investigation of the case and thereafter, during course of trial, charges have been framed against the applicant by the impugned order. I see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which calls for any interference by this Court. 8. Hence, the instant application lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad