Ramakant and 3 Others Vs State of Up and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8233 of 2026

¶3

Ramakant And 3 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Up And 3 Others

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh Ganguli, Avadhesh Kumar Yadav, Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Alind Kumar, Deepanshi, G.A., Kiran Rani, Laloo Yadav

¶9

Court No. - 74

¶10

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Laloo Yadav, informant's counsel and Sri P. P. Pandey, learned AGA for the State.

¶12

The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 07 of 2018, under Section 376-D, 506 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Uruwa Bazar, District- Gorakhpur pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge /Special Judge (Rape and POCSO- Court No. 2 Gorakhpur) and the order dated 16.1.2026 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Rape and POCSO- Court No. 2 Gorakhpur) by which orders for issuance of NBW have been passed.

¶13

Counsel for the applicants submits that it is alleged in the complaint that named accused person committed rape on the minor daughter of the complainant. Complainant tried to lodge FIR but no FIR was lodged then complainant filed application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before learned Magistrate in the year 2017 thereafter, complaint was registered U/s 376D, 506 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, considering the contents of application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., subsequently the statement was recorded U/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., thereafter, summon was issued in the year 2021, thereafter, applicant filed revision, bearing No.157 of 2021 before coordinate of this Court and the Court vide order dated 12.12.2023, disposed

¶14

NA528 No. 8233 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

off the revision of the applicant with direction to the applicant to surrender before the court below and apply for bail, thereafter, applicants filed anticipatory bail application, bearing No.10970 of 2025 before coordinate Bench of this Court, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.02.2026, after that, instant application has been filed to quash the proceeding on the ground that present complaint is not supported by medical examination report. Present complaint has been lodged on account of previous enmity between the parties and only to harass the applicants.

¶17

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel.

¶18

Considering the argument raised by applicants' counsel and on perusal of record it is evident that summoning has been issued in the year 2021 and applicant had knowledge in regard to summon issued by learned Magistrate but applicant did not appear before trial court but filed revision in which he was directed to surrender before the court below and apply for bail, thereafter, he filed anticipatory bail application, the same was dismissed as withdrawn, thereafter, present application has been filed after about 5 years. Applicant had knowledge in regard to proceeding but he had not filed application earlier, after exhausting all remedy, present petition has been filed. Now trial court initiated proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C., at this stage, Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The submission raised by applicants' counsel are disputed question of facts which cannot be entertained at this stage. Trial court has to examine the facts. At the stage of summoning, court has to see whether prima facie offence is made out against the applicants or not. On perusal of statement of victim recorded U/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. it emerges that the victim was 13 years of age and applicants on point of knife, putting pressure to kill her, committed rape, as such, prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. No interference is warranted.

¶19

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 528 BNSS cannot assume such

¶20

NA528 No. 8233 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

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 528 BNSS 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.

¶23

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 BNSS as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶24

The present 528 BNSS application of applicants is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

¶25

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶26

May 18, 2026 Nitin Verma

¶27

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramakant and 3 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant and 3 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Gupta @ Kuldeep Gupta and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam @ Chhotu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Gupta @ Kuldeep Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumit Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brahmadev and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another