Dileep Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

Dileep Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim order only: notice issued to the private respondent; case listed in the last week of April, 2026; till the next date of listing, the impugned proceedings against the applicant shall remain stayed. Final determination of the quashing application deferred.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 03.12.2025, the summoning order dated 06.12.2025 and the entire proceedings in Case Crime No.156/2025 (State vs. Dileep Yadav) under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) BNS and 5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Pachpedwa, Balrampur, ought to be quashed.

Court's answer

On the material placed (victim aged about 17 years, 9 months and 26 days, about to attain majority, and her investigation statement categorically denying the prosecution story), the Court found that the matter requires consideration and entertained the quashing application.

Ratio / Principle

As interim protection, till the next date of listing, the impugned proceedings against the applicant shall remain stayed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Rajeev Singh, J. — Application under Section 528 BNSS (No. 278 of 2026) by Dileep Yadav seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 03.12.2025 and summoning order dated 06.12.2025 in Case Crime No.156/2025 under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) BNS and 5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Pachpedwa, Balrampur, along with the entire proceedings (State vs. Dileep Yadav) pending before the Special District and Session (POCSO Act) Balrampur. Applicant pleaded false implication; the victim, stated to be aged about 17 years, 9 months and 26 days per school leaving certificate, had twice left home to join him; her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS categorically denied the prosecution story; the ossification test was not conducted; the parties married before the Special Marriage Officer; custody of the victim was handed to her parents; charge-sheet was filed. Held: matter requires consideration; notice issued to the private respondent; case listed in the last week of April, 2026; till then, the impugned proceedings against the applicant to remain stayed. (Interim order; final decision reserved.)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 278 of 2026

Dileep Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Iqbal Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 14

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

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

This application has been filed with the following prayers:-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charge sheet dated 03.12.2025 along with summoning order dated 06.12.2025, case crime no.156/2025 under section 137(2), 87, 64(2)m, BNS & 5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Pachpedwa, Balrampur along with entire proceeding bearing on above noted case (State vs. Dileep Yadav) pending before them Special District and Session (POCSO Act) Balrampur (contaied as Annexure No.1 in the interest of justice"

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the victim was in a friendly relationship with the applicant and had earlier left her house to join his company; thereafter, on the basis of incorrect facts, an FIR was lodged. It is further submitted that the victim again left her house and joined the company of the applicant, and once again, on the basis of incorrect facts, the present FIR was registered. Learned counsel also submits that the statement of the victim was recorded under Sections 180

NA528 No. 278 of 2026

2

and 183 of the BNSS, wherein she categorically denied the prosecution story. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that, as per the school leaving certificate, the victim was aged about 17 years, 9 months, and 26 days at the time of the incident. He further submits that the ossification test of the victim was deliberately not conducted. He next submits that the applicant and the victim appeared before the Special Marriage Officer and entered into marriage. Learned counsel further submits that the custody of the victim was handed over to her parents. He also submits that the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant.

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant but he does not dispute the fact that the statement of victim was recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS in which she categorically denied the prosecution story. She was aged about 17 years, 9 months and 26 days at the time of incident and charge sheet was submitted against the applicant, therefore, no interference is required.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the victim is aged about 17 years, 9 days and 26 days just to attain the age of majority and during the course of investigation her statement was recorded in which she categorically denied the prosecution story.

Matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to the private respondent.

8. List this case in the last week of April, 2026.

Till the next date of listing, impugned proceedings against the applicant shall remain stayed.

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

February 9, 2026

Renu/-

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench