Dismissed

Amit Vikram @ Sonu v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2025/883/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court order dismissed an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking to quash criminal proceedings for rape under the POCSO Act. The court held that existing evidence, including medical findings of scratch marks and corroborative statements, negated the plea of false implication.

What did the court decide?

The instant application for quashing the proceedings and impugned orders is dismissed.

Amit Vikram @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45886

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 883 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Amit Vikram @ Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Chaudhary,Divya Tripathi,Garima Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Girish Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Girish Kumar, learned cousnel appearing for the opposite party no. 3, and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. This petition has been field with a prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2025 (State Vs. Amit Vikram @ Sonu) arising out of case crime no. 62 of 2025 under Sections 65 (1) and 351 (3) B.N.S. and under Section 4 (2) of the POCSO Act relating to Police StationKotwali Ayodhya, District- Ayodhya/Faizabad pending in the court of Special Judge POCSO Act-I/ Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad as well as impugned summoning order dated 21.5.2025 and impugned bailable warrant dated 7.7.2025 against the petitioner passed by learned Special Judge POCSO Act-I/ Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad as contained in Annexure no. 2 to the petition.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first information report is lodged due to animosity. He submits that on 18.1.2025 an application was moved by the father of the applicant stating that he along with his family members have been threatened to life and subsequently first information report is lodged on 14.2.2025 and therefore the story of the prosecution is false and concocted. He also submits that the CCTV footage, which is procured by the Investigating Officer is enough to show that the applicant was not present at the place of alleged offence and therefore, the story of prosecution itself belies. Further submission is that the Investigating Officer is also failed to collect any cogent evidence against the applicant so as to establish the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and the witnesses have also denied the story of the prosecution. Further added that the doctor has observed that there was no injury on the body of the prosecutrix. Adding his arguments he submits that the prosecution against the applicant

¶9

is due to animosity in between the parties and there is no truthfullness to the same therefore, criminal proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2025 (State Vs. Amit Vikram @ Sonu) arising out of case crime no. 62 of 2025 against the applicant may be quashed.

¶10

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3/victim submits that there is specific allegation in the first information report for committing rape upon the prosecutrix and that too is supported with statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. He also added that the medical report also corroborate the story of the prosecution, therefore, no interference is warranted.

¶11

5. On the other hand learned A.G.A. has also supported the version of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and submits that there is serious allegation against the applicant and the applicant is main accused, against whom the allegation of committing rape is levelled. He added that the Investigating Officer after collecting evidence against the applicant, has submitted charge sheet and found the incident true. Therefore, the applicant is not entitle for any relief by this Court.

¶12

6. After considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the records, it transpires from the narration of the first information report that there is specific allegation for committing rape against the applicant. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are intact and also corroborates the prosecution story. This Court also noticed that from the medical examination report of the prosecutrix it is apparent that there are scratch marks present over both the thighs. The plea with respect to non presence of the applicant at the place of occurrence cannot be considered at this stage and as per the settled propositions of law the same can be considered at the stage of trial.

¶13

7. This Court finds no good ground to intervene in this matte, consequently, the instant application is hereby dismissed.

¶14

8. Consigned to record.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.8.2025 A nuj S ingh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Vikram @ Sonu v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Vikram @ Sonu v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dheeraj Kumar Sinha and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Batoley @ Mata Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Akash Sonker vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Vijnesh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Anand Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Lakshman Singh Pawar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another