Disposed¶12

Vikram and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2025A227/562/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; Allahabad High Court; MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 562 of 2025; summoning order dated 10.03.2023; Complaint Case No. 17414 of 2022; P.S. Sadar Bazar, Mathura; Criminal Revision No.254 of 2023; Additional Special Judge (POCSO ACT); disputed questions of fact; discharge application within 30 days; reasoned and speaking order; no coercive measures; neutral citation 2025:AHC:133730; decided 7.8.2025 by Nand Prabha Shukla, J.

What did the court decide?

Main prayer refused; however, the petitioners were granted liberty to move a discharge application through counsel within 30 days, to be decided by the Trial Court by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter, and no coercive measures are to be taken against them for 30 days or till disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.

Vikram and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 26.11.2024 in Criminal Revision No.254 of 2023 and the summoning order dated 10.03.2023 in Complaint Case No. 17414 of 2022 should be set aside. +1 more

¶7

Ratio / Principle

On the material on record it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out against the petitioners; all submissions raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court, so the prayer to set aside the impugned orders was refused.

¶8

Key takeaways

The Article 227 power may be exercised only where the Court finds failure of justice, misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, or an incorrect sentence or order, so as to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice; such grounds were not found here.ratio¶8
If the petitioners move an application for discharge through counsel within 30 days, the Trial Court shall dispose of it by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Nand Prabha Shukla, J.), disposing of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, refused to set aside the summoning order dated 10.03.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 17414 of 2022 (Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Mathura) and the order dated 26.11.2024 in Criminal Revision No.254 of 2023. The Court held that on the record it could not be said that no offence was made out against the petitioners, that the submissions raised disputed questions of fact incapable of adjudication under Article 227, and that this power may be exercised only where there is failure of justice, misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, or an incorrect sentence or order. Liberty was granted to move a discharge application within 30 days, to be decided by a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks, and no coercive measures were to be taken for 30 days or till disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133730

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 562 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vikram And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Devesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶7

"(a) Set aside the impugned order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Additional Special Judge (POCSO ACT), Court No.02, Mathura, in Criminal Revision No.254 of 2023 (Vikram and 2 Other Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and set aside the Summoning order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) F.T.C./A.C.J.M., Mathura in Complaint Case No. 17414 of 2022, Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District-Mathura (Annexure Nos. 16 and 18 respectively to the writ petition)."

¶8

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. Only in cases where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of miscarriage of justice.

¶9

Accordingly, prayer of the petitioners is refused.

¶10

However, in view of the submissions, it is provided that in case the petitioners move an application for discharge at an appropriate stage through counsel within 30 days, the same shall be disposed of by the Trial Court by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter.

¶11

For a period of 30 days or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioners in the aforesaid case.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Aditya Tripathi

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikram and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Priyanshi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Vishwas and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Khushaboo Devee and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Km. Riddhi Agarwal and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sumit Alias Deewan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Shahrukh and Another vs State of U.P. and 7 Others