Rajendra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45130 of 2025

Rajendra And 2 Others		.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Satya Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 73

¶4

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶5

As per office report dated 04.02.2026, notice has been served upon opposite party no.2 personally and opposite party no.3 through office but no one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶6

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

¶7

This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Exclusive Court (POCSO Act), Basti in warrant/summon Case No.55 of 2024 (Ramnet vs. Rajendra and others), under Sections 354, 342, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of Protection of children From Sexual Act, Police Station Dubauliya, District Basti, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Exclusive Court (POCSO Act), Basti.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegation alleged in the complaint is false and baseless, not supported by any material evidence. Complaint lodged on account of prior enmity between the parties. It is alleged in the complaint that on account of digging public road, applicants entered in the house of opposite party no.2, assaulted and molested the minor daughter of the opposite party no.2. When opposite party no.2 went to lodge FIR, no FIR has registered. In-charge of Police Station called opposite party no.2 on 14.04.2024 and pressurized the applicants to compromise the matter. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that allegation alleged in the complaint is false and baseless and

¶9

NA528 No. 45130 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

complaint lodged with malice intention on account of previous enmity. Medical examination report, statement of the complainant and statement of the victim recorded under sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. are not supported the prosecution story. No offence under alleged section is made out.

¶12

Learned AGA opposed the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶13

The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that The impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court.the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage.

¶14

In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, 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, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 528 B.N.S.S as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶15

Considered the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record. Submission of the applicants is that present complaint lodged with malice intention on account of previous enmity between the parties. Argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed question of facts. Contents of complaint as well as

¶16

NA528 No. 45130 of 2025

¶17

3

¶18

statement recorded under sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. prima-facie disclosed offence against the applicants. Another submission of the applicants are disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated at this stage. No interference is warranted. The present application is, hereby, dismissed .

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.3 is not on bail, as such, if applicant no.3 approach and surrender before the concerned court below within three weeks from today and in case apply for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law in view of Apex Court judgment in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another , 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶20

March 18, 2026 SKD

¶21

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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

Rajendra Prasad Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Shaheen @ Shahid vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajaram vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Gopal Kukreja vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Tyagi vs State of U.P. and Another