Rahul v. State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary

2. The present application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffar Nagar and entire further proceeding in Complaint Case No. 11/9 of 2024 (Smt. Shahida Vs. Rahul and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 636 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending before Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffar Nagar.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been summoned under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that earlier first information report was lodged on 19.10.2023 under Sections 354, 354 (Ga), 376, 506, 363 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 POCSO Act. The police after submission of charge sheet submitted a final report. The protest petition was filed and the case was dismissed at the stage of Section 203 Cr.P.C. by order dated 9.4.2025 against which the opposite party no. 2 preferred Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 18385 of 2025 where this Court has passed the following order :- "12. Notably, the Court are not required to record a conclusive findings at the stage of summoning whether offence has been committed or not but what would be required, would be a prima facie findings that the case is 2 NA528 No. 42191 of 2025 triable on the basis of the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis the allegations in the complaint/ first information report. If there are material contradictions in the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis which the allegations in the FIR of the complaint which leads to the only conclusion that no such offences have been committed then obviously, the complaint in the given facts and circumstances as it may be rejected.

13. Since the aforesaid exercise is lacking in the order under challenge rejecting the complaint of the opposite party No. 2, thus, the order cannot be sustained. Importantly, on a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Pawan Kumar Mishra and learned State Law Officer whether there is any discussion on the aspect of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses vis-a-vis the allegations in the complaint/ FIR with respect to the fact whether there is any material contradiction or variation which goes to the root of the matter in order to determine that the complaint is frivolous, they submit that the said exercise is lacking and the order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass fresh orders. Accordingly, the application is decided in the following terms: (a) The order dated 09-04-2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffarnagar in complaint Case No.11/9 of 2024 (Smt. Shahida Vs. Rahul and others) is set aside. (b) The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

14. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 31.07.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.

15. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that after remand by this Court by order dated 18.7.2025 now the applicant has been summoned under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Previously the court concerned had rejected the prosecution under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 3 NA528 No. 42191 of 2025 Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that even otherwise the statement of the victim would go to show that allegation have also been made with regard to rape against one Deepu, however, only the applicant has been summoned. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner under the influence of the earlier order of this Court dated 18.7.2025.

5. Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has opposed the application and submits that victim has made specific allegation in the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before this Court with regard to rape against applicant and as such the summoning order against applicant is in accordance with law.

6. It is to be seen that in the present case victim in her statement before the court concerned has made specific allegation with regard to rape against the applicant. Although the second incident in which rape allegation has also been made against one Deepu also, however, it cannot be said that there is no allegation of rape against the applicant. The law is well settled that the statement of victim alone itself is enough for prosecution of the accused in respect of allegation of rape, more particularly, when the victim is a minor. Although the applicant has argued that applicant has been falsely implicated, however, no facts and material have been shown before this Court to indicate that applicant has been falsely implicated. Just because previously prosecution case was rejected by the court concerned which on remand by this Court the summoning order has been passed is indicative of the fact that order has been passed in legal manner. There is a statement of the victim which specifically indicates that applicant has committed offence as such this Court does not deem it proper to interfere in the impugned order at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. However, any finding recorded in the present order shall not be read against the accused in the trial. October 29, 2025 VMA (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

2. The present application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffar Nagar and entire further proceeding in Complaint Case No. 11/9 of 2024 (Smt. Shahida Vs. Rahul and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 636 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending before Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffar Nagar.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been summoned under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that earlier first information report was lodged on 19.10.2023 under Sections 354, 354 (Ga), 376, 506, 363 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 POCSO Act. The police after submission of charge sheet submitted a final report. The protest petition was filed and the case was dismissed at the stage of Section 203 Cr.P.C. by order dated 9.4.2025 against which the opposite party no. 2 preferred Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 18385 of 2025 where this Court has passed the following order :- "12. Notably, the Court are not required to record a conclusive findings at the stage of summoning whether offence has been committed or not but what would be required, would be a prima facie findings that the case is 2 NA528 No. 42191 of 2025 triable on the basis of the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis the allegations in the complaint/ first information report. If there are material contradictions in the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis which the allegations in the FIR of the complaint which leads to the only conclusion that no such offences have been committed then obviously, the complaint in the given facts and circumstances as it may be rejected.

13. Since the aforesaid exercise is lacking in the order under challenge rejecting the complaint of the opposite party No. 2, thus, the order cannot be sustained. Importantly, on a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Pawan Kumar Mishra and learned State Law Officer whether there is any discussion on the aspect of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses vis-a-vis the allegations in the complaint/ FIR with respect to the fact whether there is any material contradiction or variation which goes to the root of the matter in order to determine that the complaint is frivolous, they submit that the said exercise is lacking and the order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass fresh orders. Accordingly, the application is decided in the following terms: (a) The order dated 09-04-2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffarnagar in complaint Case No.11/9 of 2024 (Smt. Shahida Vs. Rahul and others) is set aside. (b) The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

14. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 31.07.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.

15. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that after remand by this Court by order dated 18.7.2025 now the applicant has been summoned under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Previously the court concerned had rejected the prosecution under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 3 NA528 No. 42191 of 2025 Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that even otherwise the statement of the victim would go to show that allegation have also been made with regard to rape against one Deepu, however, only the applicant has been summoned. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner under the influence of the earlier order of this Court dated 18.7.2025.

5. Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has opposed the application and submits that victim has made specific allegation in the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before this Court with regard to rape against applicant and as such the summoning order against applicant is in accordance with law.

6. It is to be seen that in the present case victim in her statement before the court concerned has made specific allegation with regard to rape against the applicant. Although the second incident in which rape allegation has also been made against one Deepu also, however, it cannot be said that there is no allegation of rape against the applicant. The law is well settled that the statement of victim alone itself is enough for prosecution of the accused in respect of allegation of rape, more particularly, when the victim is a minor. Although the applicant has argued that applicant has been falsely implicated, however, no facts and material have been shown before this Court to indicate that applicant has been falsely implicated. Just because previously prosecution case was rejected by the court concerned which on remand by this Court the summoning order has been passed is indicative of the fact that order has been passed in legal manner. There is a statement of the victim which specifically indicates that applicant has committed offence as such this Court does not deem it proper to interfere in the impugned order at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. However, any finding recorded in the present order shall not be read against the accused in the trial. October 29, 2025 VMA (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)