Himanshu Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121468

Court No. - 79

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21786 of 2025

Applicant :- Himanshu Tomar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar,Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shahsi Dhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 14-02-2024, cognizance order dated 11-032024 in case crime no. 27 of 2024, under Sections 354, 506, 323, 376 IPC and 5/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Beeta-2, district Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR was lodged on 27.01.2024 under Sections 354 and 506 I.P.C., and later Sections 323, 376 I.P.C., and 5/6 of the POCSO Act were added, despite the alleged incident having occurred nearly two years earlier. No explanation for this inordinate delay has been furnished by the informant. It is further submitted that the medical examination of the alleged victim, conducted on 28.01.2024, did not reveal any external or internal injury, and no obscene photographs or videos were recovered from the applicant. Moreover, the victim was not referred for radiological age determination, and no X-ray or radiologist's report is available on record. It is also argued that the alleged victim was over 18 years of age at the time of the incident and had altered her name and date of birth to remain eligible for under-18 tennis tournaments, having completed high school through open schooling. It is further submitted that the relationship between the applicant and the informant was longstanding and cordial until a financial dispute arose, wherein the applicant demanded repayment of a loan given earlier. Following a heated exchange, the present false FIR was lodged as an act of vengeance. It is also alleged that after registration of the FIR, the police demanded 5,00,000 from the₹ applicant's family to settle the matter, and when they failed to pay, the victim’s statements were exaggerated, leading to the addition of Section 376 I.P.C. It is further pointed out that the applicant has

¶9

already been granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 07.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9963 of 2024. After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet on 10.04.2024, and the court took cognizance and issued the summoning order dated 29.04.2024 mechanically and without application of judicial mind. The applicant, by means of the instant application, has challenged the charge sheet as well as the summoning order.

¶10

. Per contra, Sri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned A.G.A., submitted that the applicant happens to be the trainer of the victim and used to harass her, and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is selfexplanatory. From the bare perusal of the F.I.R., it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. He further submitted that the court below has rightly summoned the applicant, and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as in the ongoing proceedings.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

From the perusal of 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 applicants. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants are all disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court.

¶13

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶14

The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicants. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.

¶15

However, it is open for the applicants to take all its defence in the trial.

¶16

Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.7.2025

¶18

pks

¶19

Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Himanshu Tomar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Tomar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases