HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17511 of 2026 Court No. - 80 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State perused the record. 2. This application has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2025 impugned charge sheet dated 08.08.2024 submitted in Case Crime No. 46 of 2024, under Sections 323, 342, 504, 506, 376D of I.P.C. and Section 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj, as well as cognizance order dated 30.08.2024, pending in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the proceeding initiated against the applicant is illegal and against the material available on record; the material of investigation does not disclose commission of any alleged offences against the applicant and as such the proceedings initiated against the applicant including the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order are liable to be quashed by this court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the incident had taken place on 12.01.2024, but the information was given to the police authorities on 03.02.2024, however, the F.I.R. was lodged on 12.02.2024, under Section 354(gha), 323, 342, 504, 506 of I.P.C. only. Later on, Sections 376-D of I.P.C. and Section 67 of I.T. Act, were added by the police during course of investigation. No explanation has been given either by the first informant or by the victim in respect of delay in lodging the F.I.R. A malicious prosecution was launched by the victim of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vikas Babu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) the present case and deliberately added Section 376-D and Section 67 of I.T. Act. Had the incident of rape taken place on 12.01.2024, this fact should have been mentioned in the F.I.R. dated 12.02.2024. A false case was lodged against the applicant. 5. Per contra, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicant by way of submitting that the averments whatsoever has been raised by learned counsel for applicant is subject matter of trial and submitted that after considering the material available on record, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant upon which learned court concerned has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the applicant. It is further submitted that the delay has been properly explained by the first informant in the F.I.R. itself. Even the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., has sufficiently explained the delay in respect of lodgment of F.I.R. This is a case of gang rape and the victim was subjected to rape by two persons. A prima facie offence is made out from perusal of statements of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and appreciation of evidence cannot be done by this Court under this jurisdiction. 6. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and by bare perusal of record, there appears to be no illegality and impropriety in the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order and as such learned court concerned has rightly proceeded against the applicant. 7. In view thereof, the instant application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. May 6, 2026 A.P. Pandey NA528 No. 17511 of 2026 2 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad