Dismissed¶20

Abhishek Pratap Singh ( Ajeet Singh in Fir ) v. the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2025A482/8709/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application u/S 482 CrPC dismissed; FIR dated 10.9.2021 u/S 376, 323, 506 IPC, 3/4 POCSO Act, 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act; two final reports by police; reinvestigation on father's application; protest petition; summoning of accused; statements u/S 200/202 CrPC; rape allegation; trial required; liberty to apply for bail within three weeks; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Brij Raj Singh, J.; November 4, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to counsel for the applicant to apply for bail within three weeks, such application to be disposed of by the learned trial court in accordance with law. ¶20

Abhishek Pratap Singh ( Ajeet Singh in Fir )… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to counsel for the applicant to apply for bail within three weeks, such application to be disposed of by the learned trial court in accordance with law.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against the applicant, who stands summoned on the complainant's protest despite two police final reports, are liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC or whether trial is required.

¶12

Court's answer

On hearing both parties, the Court found that there is an allegation of rape against the applicant as alleged by the victim under Section 202 CrPC.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

This Court cannot adduce/weigh the evidence on record at this stage, and therefore trial is certainly required.

¶19

Key takeaways

The application is dismissed, with liberty to counsel for the applicant to apply for bail within three weeks, to be disposed of by the learned trial court in accordance with law.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Brij Raj Singh, J., by order dated November 4, 2025, dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC (No. 8709 of 2025) by Abhishek Pratap Singh seeking quashing of proceedings arising from an FIR dated 10.9.2021 lodged by the victim's father under Sections 376, 323, 506 IPC, Sections 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. After investigation the police twice filed final reports; on the complainant's protest, statements under Sections 200/202 CrPC were recorded and the applicant was summoned. Counsel argued false implication owing to enmity over a Gram Panchayat election and that the medical report did not support the prosecution. Holding that there is an allegation of rape as alleged by the victim under Section 202 CrPC, supported by the complainant's father under Section 200 CrPC, and that the Court cannot adduce the evidence on record at this stage, the Court held that trial is certainly required, dismissed the application, and granted liberty to apply for bail within three weeks to the learned trial court.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8709 of 2025

¶3

Abhishek Pratap Singh ( Ajeet Singh In Fir )

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Uroosa Ali,	Pravin Kumar Verma, Shubham
	Yadav, Taj	Mohammad Tabish
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No.- 16

¶10

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶11

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR was lodged by the father of the victim on 10.9.2021 under Section 376, 323, 506 IPC, 3 / 4 POCSO Act and 3 (2) (V) of SC/ST Act. Investigation was completed and final report was filed. Again on application of the father, the matter was reinvestigated and again final report was submitted by the police. It is submitted that the medical report is also not supporting the prosecution case.

¶12

It has been submitted that on the protest made by the complainant statement under Section 200/202 CrPC were recorded and the applicants have been summoned without considering the fact that the two FRs have been lodged by the police in which final report is submitted. He has submitted that bare perusal of the FIR as well as the material collected by the police indicates that no offence is made out against the applicant and he is falsely implicated for the reason that there is enmity which occurred due to election of Gram Panchayat between the petitioner and opposite party no.2.

¶13

Power filed by Shri Sagar Singh, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶14

It has been submitted that statement under Section 200 CrPC of the father and as well as of victim under Section 202 CrPC and two other independent witnesses have been recorded and the statement of the victim itself is sufficient to convict the applicant.

¶15

It has been submitted that this court cannot hold trial and the allegation is pertaining to rape, therefore, this Court cannot weigh the evidences and certainly trial is required.

¶16

After hearing broth the parties I am of the view that there is allegation of rape against as alleged by the victim under Section 202 CrPC. Father of complainant also supported the prosecution case under section 200 CrPC and this Court cannot adduce

¶17

A482 No. 8709 of 2025

¶18

¶19

the evidence on record for which certainly trial is required .

¶20

Application is dismissed. Counsel for applicant may apply for bail within three weeks which may be disposed by the learned trial court in accordance with law.

¶21

November 4, 2025 mks

¶22

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abhishek Pratap Singh ( Ajeet Singh in Fir ) v. the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Pratap Singh ( Ajeet Singh in Fir ) v. the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Mohammad Akbar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Subhash Singh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Alka Singh @ Neha Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Divya Pandey @ Gudiya @ Divya Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Mohammad Hussain vs M/S, Arafat Developers Private Ltd., Thru. Its Dir. Furqan Ahmad

Neemar Singh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another