Sandeep Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105578

Court No. - 75

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17652 of 2025

Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This is an application filed U/s 528 BNSS for quashing the nonbailable warrant dated 11.01.2023 and summoning order dated 22.10.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Basti, as well as the entire proceeding of case no. 105 of 2022 arising out of complaint case no. 70 of 2020 (Durga Prasad vs. Sandeep Kumar and Ors) U/s 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Gaur, District Basti pending before the court of Juvenile Justice Board, Basti.

¶8

This Court on 19.05.2025 issued notices to respondent nos. 2 & 4. There is an office report dated 02.07.2025 shows that the notice has been served upon the opposite party no. 2 & 4 however, till the dictation of the order nobody has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 4.

¶9

A joint statement has been by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA that they do not propose to file any response and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.

¶10

With the consent of the parties, the present application is being decided at the fresh stage.

¶11

The case set forth in the application is that a complaint was lodged on 09.06.2020 by the opposite party no.2 who happens to be the father of the victim with the allegation that the victim is aged about 14 years and on 21.05.2022 at 05:00 in the morning the victim had gone to answer the natures call and when was returning

¶12

back then the applicant no.1 started molesting the victim while catching hold the hand of the victim and dragging her to the agricultural field/ garden and, thereafter, hue and cry was raised by the victim then then wife of the opposite party no.2/ complainant rushed and witnessing the same, the applicant no.1 fled. In the complaint it is also alleged that after receiving the information about the said incident, the opposite party no.2/ complainant along with his wife and the victim proceeded to the house of the applicant no.1 and the applicant no.2 who along with one Ram Kishun hurled abuses and administered beating and on raising of hue and cry, the villagers came there. Though proceedings were initiated for lodging of the first information report but nothing was done. Thus, on 23.05.2020 a complaint was lodged before the Superintendent of Police and when nothing was done, proceeding U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was lodged. Post recording of the statement of the complainant U/s 200 Cr.P.C. and of the victim with her mother U/s 202 Cr.P.C., the applicant no.1 herein has been summoned U/s 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC read with Section 7/8 of POCSO Act on 22.10.2021 and the applicant no.2 U/s 323, 504, 506 IPC was also summoned. Questioning the summoning order the present application has been preferred.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the entire allegations was sought to be levelled in the complaint are totally false and frivolous and the applicants have been falsely implicated and roped in. The submission is that with respect to a land dispute a compromise stood entered into between the applicant fraction and the complainant on 20.05.2020 annexure-8 at page 56 and further a first information report was also lodged by the father of the applicant nos. 1 & 2 against the opposite party no.2/ complainant. On 14.08.2009 at 11:30 hrs being case crime no. 75 of 2009 under section 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC. The submission is that the entire basis for lodging of the complaint is retaliation and counter blast. He further submits that even otherwise the victim was not put to medical examination and further there is nothing on record to suggest that any such criminality was inflicted. Learned counsel for the applicants has invited the attention of the Court towards para-9 of the application so as to contend that the applicant nos. 1 & 2 are minor and as per the High School Certificate-cum-marksheet the date of birth of the applicant no.1 is 08.07.2002 and applicant no.2 is 01.01.2005. It is further contended while inviting attention towards para-13 of the application is a student of MBBS in Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Prayagraj and applicant no.2 is preparing for examination of NEET. Learned counsel for the applicants thus submits that the

¶14

applicants have been falsely implicated.

¶15

Learned AGA on the other hand submits while countering the submissions so made by the counsel for the applicants submits that from the perusal of the allegations contained in the complaint visa-vis the statements U/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., pin pointed allegations have been levelled and there are no material contradictions or variations in the statements vis-a-vis the complaint. According to him this much isrequirement for summoning the applicant. He also submits that in case the applicants has any genuine ground then it is open for him to prefer a discharge application before the court below.

¶16

I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

¶17

In the present case at the instance of the applicants, challenge has been raised to a summoning order whereby the applicants have been summoned under the penal provision. There are certain parameters according to which it is to be determined as to whether the summoning order suffers from illegality or infirmity or not. In case there are material contradiction which goes to the root of the matter then obviously Court would not be reluctant in interfering. In the present case in hand, it is the stand of the applicant that the daughter of opposite party no.2 was not subjected to any medical examination and further, they are students and there happens to be interse rivalry between both the faction namely applicants faction and complainant faction. With respect to landed dispute which got a final shape by way of settlement and lodging of the criminal proceedings by way of FIR. Since the counsel for the applicants on instructions submits that the applicants shall be filing a discharge application and the same is also the suggestion of learned AGA, thus, the present application is disposed of directing the applicants to submit a discharge application by 06.08.2025 and on the said motion, the court below shall decide the discharge application strictly in accordance with law with most expedition.

¶18

Till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants pursuant to complaint case no. 70 of 2020 (Durga Prasad vs. Sandeep Kumar and Ors) U/s 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Gaur, District Basti pending before the court of Juvenile Justice Board, Basti.

¶19

The protection so accorded to the applicants shall be only in those contingencies wherein the applicants sticks to the timelines

¶20

and does not violate any of the conditions of the order. In case of any violation, the protection stand vacated without reference to the Bench.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.7.2025 /C. MANI

¶22

( Vikas Budhwar,J. )

¶23

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. 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