Nidhi Rawat and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

Nidhi Rawat and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing prayer refused; applicants given liberty to surrender before the court concerned within four weeks and apply for bail, with a direction that the bail application be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with Satender Kumar Antil (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825); no coercive action against applicants for four weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the chargesheet dated 25.11.2024, the cognizance/summoning order dated 28.02.2025 and the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 502 of 2024 are liable to be quashed.

Court's answer

No case for interference was made out; no ground was available in the application on the basis of which the impugned order, chargesheet and entire proceedings could be set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The prayer sought through the application (quashing of chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order and proceedings) was refused.

Key takeaways

Application disposed of with a direction that if the applicants surrender before the court concerned within four weeks and apply for bail, the bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil.ratio¶14
Till four weeks from the date of the order, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in pursuance of the said case.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing application under S. 528 BNSS against chargesheet dated 25.11.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 28.02.2025 in Case Crime No. 502 of 2024 (Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura): Held, on perusal of the FIR narration, impugned order and chargesheet, no ground for interference was made out; prayer refused. Application disposed of with liberty to the applicants to surrender within four weeks and apply for bail, which shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with Satender Kumar Antil (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825); no coercive action against applicants for four weeks.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21366 of 2025

Nidhi Rawat And Another

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 4 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Mahendra Bahadur Singh, Vijeta Singh : G.A., Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Court No. - 80

HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

None appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 in revised call, however, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA appearing for the State are present.

This present application has been filed for seeking quashing of chargesheet dated 25.11.2024 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 28.02.2025 and entire proceeding of Case arising out of Case Crime No. 502 of 2024 (State vs. Pawan Singh and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mathura.

On perusal of the narration of FIR as well as impugned order and chargesheet, this Court does not find it to be a case where interference of this Court is required. No such ground appears to be available in the present application, on the basis of which, impugned order along with chargesheet and entire proceedings of the said case, can be set aside.

Accordingly, the prayer sought through the instant application, is refused.

Lastly, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that liberty may be granted to applicants to surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail to which learned AGA has no objection.

NA528 No. 21366 of 2025

2

In view of the aforesaid, the instant application is finally disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that in case, the applicants surrender before the court concerned within a period of four weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825) .

However, it is made clear that till four weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants herein in pursuance of aforesaid case.

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

May 7, 2026 A.P. Pandey

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad