State of U.P. and Another v. Party

1. Heard Sri Sujan Singh (AoR No.A/S 1451/12) holding brief of Sri Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri J.B. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sujeet Kumar, for O.P. no.2.

2. A joint statement has been made by the counsel for the parties that the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.

3. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing the order impugned dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Court of Learned Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act in Complaint Case Number 201 of 2024, arising out from the protest petition in pursuance of Case Crime Number 0621 of 2024 registered at Police Station: Highway, Mathura, District Mathura for an offence under Section 376, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 5M and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

4. The case of the applicant is that on 24.06.2024, proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC came to be lodged by the O.P. No.2 against the applicant for the offences under Section 376, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act with an allegation that on 05.06.2024, at about 6:30 in the evening, the daughter of the O.P. No.2 was all alone, victim, who is aged about 7 years, was playing and the allegation is that the applicant herein came there and finding the victim to be all alone, exhibited indecent 2 NA528 No. 2105 of 2025 behaviour, disrobed her below the naval portion touched the private parts and when the victim made hue and cry, then the wife of O.P. No.2, came running and the applicant herein seeing her hurled abuses and threatened that she should not disclose the said fact with anybody. Thereafter the O.P. no.2 on being informed about the said incident had approached the police station for lodging the FIR and for getting the medical done but nothing was done and on 18.06.2024 by virtue of a registered letter, a complaint was sent and on 24.06.2024, the proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC came to be lodged. Post-recording of the statement of the victim under Section 161 and 164 of CrPC and of mother of the victim /O.P. No.2 under Section 161 CrPC, the investigation stood culminated into a final report dated 18.08.2024 and thereafter, a protest petition came to be preferred by the applicant on

08.10.2024 and on 23.10.2024, the court below transformed the present case into a complaint case and post recording of the statement of the O.P. no.2 under Section 200 of CrPC as well as of the victim and her mother under Section 202 CrPC on 24.12.2024 the court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Addl. Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Mathura proceeded to reject the complaint under Section 203 CrPC.

4. Questioning the same, the present application has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order dated

24.12.2024 passed by the court below cannot be sustained for a single moment inasmuch as, the considerations of the court below are novel and foreign to the settled principles. Submission is that though the allegations were under Section 156(3) CrPC regarding commission of the offences under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and in the statement of the victim under Section 161/164 CrPC and of the mother of the victim under Section 161 CrPC, pinpointed allegations were leveled upon the O.P. No.2, but the investigating officer submitted a final report on 18.08.2024 and thereafter, on filing of the protest petition, the case stood transformed into a complaint case and post-recording of the statements under Section 200 and 202 of CrPC, the complaint came to be rejected. Submission is that even otherwise, in the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC, the witnesses have supported the prosecution theory and so much so, the victim who happens to be a minor girl has herself come up with a stand that she was subjected to the said offences and thus the court below on the basis of the minor variation and contradictions could not have rejected the complaint, particularly when the rigors of section 29 of the POCSO Act 3 NA528 No. 2105 of 2025 2012 would come into play. Submission is that merely because the victim was nor subjected to medical examination would not be a ground to reject the complaint, particularly when its remification and effect are to be tested on its own velocity when the trial commences, where a decision is to be taken whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction. Further submission is that the consideration with regard to the fact that there happens to be a serious cloud over the weapon which is being sought to be used for aiding the commission of the offence being a countrymade pistol and a licenced pistol would not be a ground to hold the prosecution theory to be false. Further submission is that what would be relevant was the fact that there are no material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. He thus submits that the order dated 24.12.2024 rejecting the complaint be set aside and the matter be directed to be remitted back to the court below.

6. Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sujeet Kumar on the other hand submits that the present proceedings are nothing but a grossest misuse of process of law. He while inviting attention towards the counsel affidavit filed on behalf of O.P. No.2 have sought to contend that the O.P. No.2 has purchased a piece of land from the father of the applicant and further the son of the O.P. no.2 has also purchased a piece of land from the wife of the applicant and the brother of the applicant and there happens to be a registered agreement to sell dated 28.11.2021 and further a specific performance suit being O.S. No.741 of 2015 was filed by the brother of the O.P. No.2, which was decreed against the applicant's wife and another on

09.09.2024 and an Original Suit No.1201 of 2023 was filed on behalf of the minor son of the applicant for cancellation of the sale deed dated 24.05.2023 and further a first information report bearing number "369 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506, 120-B IPC came to be filed against the O.P. no.2 by the brother of the applicant and further the O.P. no.2 has also filed FIR dated 21.05.2024 against the applicant and his two brothers being Case Crime no. 498 of 2024, under Sections 379 and 307 of IPC and it is also contended that the land in question which was to be transferred in favour of the O.P. no.2 was sold to somebody else being Sri Mathuri Agrawal and contention is that Sri Mathuri has also lodged FIR, details whereof has been given in para-17. The contention is that a civil proceeding is being given a criminal flavour by virtue of the present proceedings. It is also contended that the Magistrate has in its own wisdom has analyzed the entire aspect of 4 NA528 No. 2105 of 2025 the matter and had proceeded to reject the complaint.

7. Sri Singh, learned Senior Counsel, who appear for O.P. no.2 is entitled to the rights which flows from the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS, particularly when the protest petition came to be preferred on 08.10.2024 post-enforcement of the BNSS 2023.

8. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully.

9. Apparently, post-lodging of the proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC on 24.06.2024 under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, the first information report stood lodged and post recording of the statements under Sections 161/164 CrPC, a criminal report came to be filed on 18.09.2024. Thereafter a protest petition came to be preferred on

08.10.2024, and post recording of the statement under section 200 and 202 of CrPC, the complaint came to be rejected on 24.12.2024. In the opinion of the Court, the court below has not taken into note of Section 29 of the POCSO Act as well as the import and impact of non-subjection of the victim to medical examination and its ramification and also relevant criteria including the the arguments so sought to be raised by learned counsel for the applicant that the contradictions, if any, are not major so as to thoroughly overrule the possibility of the commission of the offences and also the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties have not been adverted to, which are core and fundamental issues.

10. Since the aforesaid aspects are lacking, thus the order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the application is being decided in the following terms:- (i) The order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Court of Learned Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act in Complaint Case No.201 of 2024 stands quashed. (ii) The matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

11. With the aforesaid observation, the application stands disposed of. October 6, 2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar,J.) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Sujan Singh (AoR No.A/S 1451/12) holding brief of Sri Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri J.B. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sujeet Kumar, for O.P. no.2.

2. A joint statement has been made by the counsel for the parties that the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.

3. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing the order impugned dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Court of Learned Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act in Complaint Case Number 201 of 2024, arising out from the protest petition in pursuance of Case Crime Number 0621 of 2024 registered at Police Station: Highway, Mathura, District Mathura for an offence under Section 376, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 5M and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

4. The case of the applicant is that on 24.06.2024, proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC came to be lodged by the O.P. No.2 against the applicant for the offences under Section 376, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act with an allegation that on 05.06.2024, at about 6:30 in the evening, the daughter of the O.P. No.2 was all alone, victim, who is aged about 7 years, was playing and the allegation is that the applicant herein came there and finding the victim to be all alone, exhibited indecent 2 NA528 No. 2105 of 2025 behaviour, disrobed her below the naval portion touched the private parts and when the victim made hue and cry, then the wife of O.P. No.2, came running and the applicant herein seeing her hurled abuses and threatened that she should not disclose the said fact with anybody. Thereafter the O.P. no.2 on being informed about the said incident had approached the police station for lodging the FIR and for getting the medical done but nothing was done and on 18.06.2024 by virtue of a registered letter, a complaint was sent and on 24.06.2024, the proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC came to be lodged. Post-recording of the statement of the victim under Section 161 and 164 of CrPC and of mother of the victim /O.P. No.2 under Section 161 CrPC, the investigation stood culminated into a final report dated 18.08.2024 and thereafter, a protest petition came to be preferred by the applicant on

08.10.2024 and on 23.10.2024, the court below transformed the present case into a complaint case and post recording of the statement of the O.P. no.2 under Section 200 of CrPC as well as of the victim and her mother under Section 202 CrPC on 24.12.2024 the court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Addl. Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Mathura proceeded to reject the complaint under Section 203 CrPC.

4. Questioning the same, the present application has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order dated

24.12.2024 passed by the court below cannot be sustained for a single moment inasmuch as, the considerations of the court below are novel and foreign to the settled principles. Submission is that though the allegations were under Section 156(3) CrPC regarding commission of the offences under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and in the statement of the victim under Section 161/164 CrPC and of the mother of the victim under Section 161 CrPC, pinpointed allegations were leveled upon the O.P. No.2, but the investigating officer submitted a final report on 18.08.2024 and thereafter, on filing of the protest petition, the case stood transformed into a complaint case and post-recording of the statements under Section 200 and 202 of CrPC, the complaint came to be rejected. Submission is that even otherwise, in the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC, the witnesses have supported the prosecution theory and so much so, the victim who happens to be a minor girl has herself come up with a stand that she was subjected to the said offences and thus the court below on the basis of the minor variation and contradictions could not have rejected the complaint, particularly when the rigors of section 29 of the POCSO Act 3 NA528 No. 2105 of 2025 2012 would come into play. Submission is that merely because the victim was nor subjected to medical examination would not be a ground to reject the complaint, particularly when its remification and effect are to be tested on its own velocity when the trial commences, where a decision is to be taken whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction. Further submission is that the consideration with regard to the fact that there happens to be a serious cloud over the weapon which is being sought to be used for aiding the commission of the offence being a countrymade pistol and a licenced pistol would not be a ground to hold the prosecution theory to be false. Further submission is that what would be relevant was the fact that there are no material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. He thus submits that the order dated 24.12.2024 rejecting the complaint be set aside and the matter be directed to be remitted back to the court below.

6. Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sujeet Kumar on the other hand submits that the present proceedings are nothing but a grossest misuse of process of law. He while inviting attention towards the counsel affidavit filed on behalf of O.P. No.2 have sought to contend that the O.P. No.2 has purchased a piece of land from the father of the applicant and further the son of the O.P. no.2 has also purchased a piece of land from the wife of the applicant and the brother of the applicant and there happens to be a registered agreement to sell dated 28.11.2021 and further a specific performance suit being O.S. No.741 of 2015 was filed by the brother of the O.P. No.2, which was decreed against the applicant's wife and another on

09.09.2024 and an Original Suit No.1201 of 2023 was filed on behalf of the minor son of the applicant for cancellation of the sale deed dated 24.05.2023 and further a first information report bearing number "369 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506, 120-B IPC came to be filed against the O.P. no.2 by the brother of the applicant and further the O.P. no.2 has also filed FIR dated 21.05.2024 against the applicant and his two brothers being Case Crime no. 498 of 2024, under Sections 379 and 307 of IPC and it is also contended that the land in question which was to be transferred in favour of the O.P. no.2 was sold to somebody else being Sri Mathuri Agrawal and contention is that Sri Mathuri has also lodged FIR, details whereof has been given in para-17. The contention is that a civil proceeding is being given a criminal flavour by virtue of the present proceedings. It is also contended that the Magistrate has in its own wisdom has analyzed the entire aspect of 4 NA528 No. 2105 of 2025 the matter and had proceeded to reject the complaint.

7. Sri Singh, learned Senior Counsel, who appear for O.P. no.2 is entitled to the rights which flows from the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS, particularly when the protest petition came to be preferred on 08.10.2024 post-enforcement of the BNSS 2023.

8. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully.

9. Apparently, post-lodging of the proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC on 24.06.2024 under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, the first information report stood lodged and post recording of the statements under Sections 161/164 CrPC, a criminal report came to be filed on 18.09.2024. Thereafter a protest petition came to be preferred on

08.10.2024, and post recording of the statement under section 200 and 202 of CrPC, the complaint came to be rejected on 24.12.2024. In the opinion of the Court, the court below has not taken into note of Section 29 of the POCSO Act as well as the import and impact of non-subjection of the victim to medical examination and its ramification and also relevant criteria including the the arguments so sought to be raised by learned counsel for the applicant that the contradictions, if any, are not major so as to thoroughly overrule the possibility of the commission of the offences and also the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties have not been adverted to, which are core and fundamental issues.

10. Since the aforesaid aspects are lacking, thus the order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the application is being decided in the following terms:- (i) The order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Court of Learned Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act in Complaint Case No.201 of 2024 stands quashed. (ii) The matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

11. With the aforesaid observation, the application stands disposed of. October 6, 2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar,J.) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad