Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135579 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27372 of 2024 Applicant :- Shyam Bihari @ Shyam Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nand Kishor Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The present application has been preferred challenging the order dated 20.07.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Mahoba whereupon rejecting the discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. of the applicant in Session Case No.208 of 2024 (State Vs. Shyam Bihari), arising out of Case Crime No. 55 of 2024, under Sections 452, 354 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Shrinagar, District Mahoba. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR bearing Case Crime No.55 of 2024 against applicant in pursuance of incident dated 07.03.2024 whereupon inquiry was conducted and after completion of the same, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet whereupon cognizance was also taken. The applicant was arrested on 10.03.2024 and he has applied for bail before court concerned which was rejected. Thereafter the applicant has filed bail application before coordinate Bench of this Court which was allowed vide order dated 19.04.2024. After his release, applicant preferred discharge application which was rejected vide order dated 20.07.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Mahoba which impugned the present application. 4. Learned counsel for applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The first information report was lodged after lapse of one day but reasons for delay of first information report has not been explained. Learned counsel for applicant further argued that by bare perusal of the averments of FIR as well as statements recorded during investigation and medical examination report of the victim, it appears that, no offence is made out against applicant but without considering the said facts, discharge application preferred at the behest of applicant, has been rejected illegally by the court concerned and as such, the same may be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and supported the order impugned. Learned AGA also submitted that the contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf of applicant, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence. It is submitted that at the stage of consideration of discharge, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the court concerned is not expected to hold a mini trial. 6. The ambit and scope of exercise of powers while passing an order of discharge, was subject matter of consideration in Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal And Another [(1979) 3 SCC 4], and it was held that the Court while exercising such powers is not to act as a trial judge but should weigh evidence and form opinion only on the limited question of whether a prima facie case is made out. 7. From perusal of the orders impugned, it is evident that the court concerned after considering each and every aspect of the matter and allegations made in the FIR and the statements recorded during the course of investigation as well as medial examination reports of the victim, has rightly rejected the application for discharge by holding that prima facie offence is clearly made out against applicant and as such, it cannot be said that the learned court concerned have acted without application of mind, the reasoning given by it, are just and proper. 8. In view thereof, the application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 #Vik/- Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad