Dismissed¶20

X Juvenile v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2026NA528/34796/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.528 BNSS quashing application dismissed; cognizance/summoning order dated 04.01.2025 of Juvenile Justice Board, Moradabad and charge sheet in S.C. No.235 of 2025 (State Vs. Nigam Deval), Case Crime No.910 of 2024, Ss.137(2)/64 BNS and Ss.3/4 POCSO Act upheld; contradiction between prosecutrix's S.180 and S.183 BNSS statements held no ground to interfere at cognizance stage; prima facie case made out on investigation material; Allahabad High Court, Chawan Prakash, J., April 7, 2026.

What did the court decide?

On the material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against the applicant; at this stage it cannot be said that no prima facie case exists. ¶15

X Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34796 of 2025

¶3

X Juvenile

¶4

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Deepak Kumar Kumar Singh	Srivastava, Rajesh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 81

¶6

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶7

List revised. None present for informant.

¶8

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for setting aside the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Moradabad and charge sheet No.1 of 2025 dated 2.1.2025 as well as entire criminal proceeding of S.C. No.235 of 2025 (State Vs. Nigam Deval) arising out of Case Crime No.910 of 2024 under Section 137(2), 64 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad, pending before learned Special Judge (POCSO) Court No.1, Moradabad.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party No.2 lodged a First Information Report dated 7.10.2024 against unknown persons as Case Crime No. 910 of 2024 under Section 137(2) of the B.N.S. He further submitted that the applicant was not named in the said F.I.R. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S., who supported the prosecution version. The statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S., wherein she did not level any allegation against the applicant. Subsequently, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., she, for the first time, alleged that the applicant committed rape. It is further submitted that during medical examination no external injury was found on her body to support the allegation of rape. After completion of

¶11

NA528 No. 34796 of 2025

¶12

¶13

investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the applicant. It is contended that there exists a material contradiction between the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S., and as such, no prima facie case is made out against the applicant on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Juvenile Justice Board has erred in taking cognizance against the applicant, and the impugned cognizance order dated 04.1.2025, along with the entire proceedings, is liable to be quashed.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions and contended that the First Information Report was duly lodged by the informant. During investigation, the statements of the prosecutrix were recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. It is further submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution case and specifically alleged the commission of rape by the applicant. It is also pointed out that the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the alleged incident was about 13½ years. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the applicant. The learned Juvenile Justice Board has taken cognizance on the basis of the material collected during investigation, and no illegality has been committed in doing so. Accordingly, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

From the facts of the present case, it transpires that the father of the prosecutrix (opposite party No.2) lodged the F.I.R. under Section 137(2) of the B.N.S. at Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad, against unknown persons. During investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S., wherein she did not make any allegation regarding the commission of rape by the applicant. However, in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., she alleged that the applicant committed rape. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted. The learned Juvenile Justice Board thereafter took cognizance on the basis of the material available on record. At this stage, it also cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board. The cognizance has been taken on the basis of evidence collected during investigation, which cannot be interfered with at

¶17

NA528 No. 34796 of 2025

¶18

¶19

this stage. Therefore, the prayer for setting aside the same is hereby refused.

¶20