Smt. Varsha and Another vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

Smt. Varsha and Another vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim directions only: notice issued to respondent no. 2; case listed on 16.3.2026 with the applicants and respondent No. 2 directed to appear before the Court; Superintendent of Police, Shrawasti directed to ensure the presence of the complainant on the next date; impugned proceedings stayed until further orders; learned AGA and counsel for the complainant permitted to file counter affidavits. Final decision on quashing deferred.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet no.1 dated 4.10.2022, the cognizance order dated 2.11.2022 and the entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Case No.373 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.221 of 2022 should be set aside/quashed. +2 more

Court's answer

Considering the submissions of counsel, the contents of the petition, the ossification test showing the victim's age as more than 18 years, her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in which she did not support the prosecution case, and her matrimonial life with applicant No.2 with a child aged about one year, the Court held that the matter requires consideration — i.e., the application was not rejected outright and the question of quashing remains open for consideration at the next hearing.

Ratio / Principle

Until further orders of this Court, the impugned proceedings of the present case shall remain stayed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 14 — Rajeev Singh, J. — January 29, 2026 — Application U/S 482 No. 539 of 2026 under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 B.N.S.S. by Smt. Varsha and another (applicant No.1 being the alleged victim) for setting aside charge sheet no.1 dated 4.10.2022 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, the cognizance order dated 2.11.2022, and the entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Case No.373 of 2022 (State vs. Prithvi Raj @ Kane) arising out of Case Crime No.221 of 2022, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Exclusive POCSO Act), Shrawasti. Counsel for applicants: the two were friends who married (marriage registered before the Marriage Registrar); applicant No.1 left home to escape a marriage being fixed against her wishes; in her Sections 161/164 Cr.P.C. statements the victim categorically denied the prosecution story; ossification test found her age 18 years (counsel) / more than 18 years (AGA concession); the couple have a child aged about one year. Reliance placed on Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 614. AGA did not dispute the victim's non-support of the prosecution version or the ossification finding. Held: matter requires consideration; notice to respondent no. 2; listed 16.3.2026; SP, Shrawasti directed to ensure complainant's presence; impugned proceedings stayed until further orders; counter affidavits permitted. Interim order — quashing question left open.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 539 of 2026

Smt. Varsha And Another

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Shameem Khan, Abdul Haleem Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 14

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicants for setting aside the charge sheet no.1, dated 4.10.2022, under Sections 363,366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station and cognizance order dated 2.11.2022 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Case No.373 of 2022 (State vs. Prithvi Raj @ Kane) arising out of Case Crime No.221 of 2022, pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Exclusive POCSO Act), Shrawasti.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant No.2 and applicant no.1 were in friendship and they were willing to enter into marriage but the same was not accepted to the respondent no. 2. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage of applicant No.1 was being fixed with someone else against her wishes by the private respondent and other family members, as a result, she left her house and joined the company of applicant No.2. Thereafter, she entered into marriage and her marriage was also registered before the Marriage Registrar.

Learned counsel further submitted that on the basis of concocted fact, respondent no. 2 lodged the FIR of the case in question and during the course of investigation, statement of victim was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in which she categorically denied the prosecution story and stated that he joined the Company of applicant no. 2 on her own and she also entered into the marriage.

Learned counsel further submitted that for age determination, ossification

A482 No. 539 of 2026

2

test was also conducted in which her age was found to be 18 years and presently, (victim) applicant No.1 is residing with applicant No.2 and they are having one child aged about one year, out of their wedlock.

Learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. & ors reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 614 and requested that the proceedings trial of the case in question is a futile one, therefore, the same may be quashed.

Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of applicants but he does not dispute this fact that the victim had not supported the prosecution version in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that on the basis of testimonials, the victim was found minor therefore, the charge sheet was submitted under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act. He also conceded this fact that in ossification test, victim was found more than 18 years and they are having one kid.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and going through the contents of the petition as well as other relevant documents including the ossification test as well as the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in which the victim has not supported the prosecution case and also in ossification test, the age of victim was found to be more than 18 years and presently, she is enjoying her matrimonial life with applicant No.2 and they are having one kid, aged about one year, out of their wedlock, therefore, matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to respondent no. 2.

List this case on 16.3.2026.

On the next date, the applicants as well as respondent No. 2 shall appear before this Court.

The Superintendent of Police, Shrawasti, is directed to ensure the presence of complainant of the present case on the next date.

Until further orders of this Court, impugned proceedings of the present case shall remain stayed.

In the meantime, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant may file counter affidavit.

January 29, 2026 Pks

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench