Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128075 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27533 of 2025 Applicant :- Lalit Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sonu Nirmal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the opposite party. 2. The present application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 18.08.2024 submitted by investigating officer, cognizance/summoning order dated 23.11.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 24850 of 2024 (State Versus Lalit Patel) arising out of Case Crime No. 364 of 2024, under Section 363, 376, 504, 5O6 I.P.C, Police Station- Kotwali Padrauna District- Kushinagar pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a false case of rape has been registered against the applicant. It is contended that after a faulty investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 363, 376, 506, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, and an illegal cognizance has been taken thereon. He has further submitted that in the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no allegation of rape. It was contended that the allegation of rape was made for the first time by the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which is unreliable. 4. It has been further submitted that the victim was not internally examined, and as such, her ocular evidence is not supported by any medical evidence on record. In view of the above facts, it is contended that no charge sheet under Section 376 IPC could have been submitted by the Investigating Officer after concluding the investigation. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Vineet Kumar & others Vs. State of U.P. & others, reported in 2017 (13) SCC 369. With these submissions, it has been prayed that the charge sheet be quashed. 5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that it is apparent from the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was raped by the applicant. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was raped by the applicant. It is also true that on 13.06.2024, the victim was not internally examined. However, it is noted that she did not refuse to undergo an internal examination. This omission was due to an error on the part of the Investigating Officer, who failed to arrange for the victim to be internally examined by a competent gynecologist. 7. It is further evident that the presence of injuries is not relevant for proving the offence of rape. Moreover, no charge has yet been framed by the trial court, granting the accused a further opportunity to argue all these points at the time of charge framing. The judgment of the Apex Court in Vineet Kumar (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, is distinguishable. In that case, there was a specific denial by the complainant to have his wife (the victim) medically examined, leading to an adverse inference being drawn against the first informant. In the present case, the victim has not refused to be internally examined, therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable to the facts of this case. 8. In my opinion, all the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant at this stage can be considered by the trial court at the time of framing of charges against the accused- applicant. 9. In view of above, the application is premature and is liable to be rejected. 10. Accordingly, the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is rejected. 11. It goes without saying that all the observations made hereinabove will not prejudice the trial court while framing the charges against the accused, and the trial court is free to form its independent opinion regarding the charges that are to be framed against the accused. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Himanshu Digitally signed by :- HIMANSHU YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- HIMANSHU YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad