Applicants sought quashing of a summoning order in a POCSO case, claiming they were exonerated during investigation and that cognizance was premature. The court found essential ingredients of the offences prima facie attracted, held fact-appreciation lay with the trial court, and dismissed the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85014
Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17907 of 2025
Applicant :- Chandralok Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bhanu Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
drawing the Court's attention to the serious nature of the allegations made by the victim. It is submitted that the victim, who was allegedly subjected to sexual exploitation from the age of 14, was a student at the institution owned and managed by the applicants. It is further argued that the impugned order is legally sustainable and does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
dismissed .
Order Date :- 20.5.2025
Shafique
Vinod Diwakar, J.
Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the summoning order dated 25.04.2025 and criminal proceedings in Case Crime No. 85 of 2025 could be quashed despite applicants' claimed exoneration during investigation.
Whether cognizance taken against the applicants without sufficient material warranted interference under Section 528 BNSS.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Chandralok Singh And 2 Others
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Vinod Diwakar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
