HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34905 of 2025 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Aalok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. 2. In the light of proposed order notice to opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with. 3. By means of present application under Section 528 of BNSS, the applicant has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 393 of 2024 - State Vs. Santosh Kumar and Another, arising out of Case Crime No. 125 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376D, 342 IPC and Section 5(G)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Khampar, District - Deoria as well as Cognizance/Summoning Order dated 23.07.2024 and Charge Sheet dated 30.06.2024, filed in the aforesaid case. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aalok Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jantu Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that first information report was lodged on 30.05.2024, at Police Station - Khampar, District - Deoria under Sections 363, 376D, 342 IPC and Section 5(G)/6 of POCSO Act, alleging that sister of the informant has been enticed by one Santosh S/o Raj Kumar and is not traceable. It is stated that subsequently, the prosecutrix was recovered, where she stated that her age is 17 years and one of her neighbor i.e. the applicant on 29.05.2025 at 6.00PM offered her a glass of mango juice and after consuming the same she slept and when she woke up she found herself in the company of applicant as well as another person named Santosh, who had forcibly sexually assaulted her and subsequently left her at Deoria. 5. The statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded where she has reiterated the same story and same contents as recorded in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., except the fact that date of incident is 25.05.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that at three different places, different dates have been recorded, while in the FIR date of incident is recorded as 30.05.2024, in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. date is 29.05.2024, while in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the date of incident is mentioned as 25.05.2024. It is submitted that once date of incident is varying then in such circumstances there are no chances of success in the prosecution and prayer has been made to quash the proceedings of the criminal case NA528 No. 34905 of 2025 2 lodged against the applicant. It is submitted that on the previous occasion also a first information report was lodged making same allegations. No other ground has been urged. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application. He has submitted that so far as date of incident is concerned, same can be subjected to evidence during the trial where the applicant would have full opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. It has been further stated that so far as contents of the allegations which have been borne out from the statements of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., are unequivocal inasmuch as allegations with regard to sexual assault with the prosecutrix have been levelled against the applicant in both the statements. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that merely because date of incident is different at two different places, it cannot be a ground for staffeling the prosecution. In both the statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has unequivocally pointed out the complicity of the applicant in serious offence under Section 376 IPC. With regard to date of incident, is an issue which can be looked into at the stage of trial and evidence which are adduced at that stage. It is also noticed that on previous occasion first NA528 No. 34905 of 2025 3 information report dated 06.03.2024 was lodged, wherein, it has been stated that the prosecutrix is slightly mentally unstable and in case it is so, the discrepancy in the date of incident may be due to the unstable mental state of the prosecutrix. 9. This Court is of the considered view that merely because date of incident is different at different places, same cannot be a ground for quashing the process of prosecution. 10. The application being devoid of merits is dismissed. September 19, 2025 A. Verma NA528 No. 34905 of 2025 4 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad