Allahabad High Court
NIDHI RAWAT AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that there is no ground to quash the chargesheet and dismissed the application under Section 528 CrPC.
Summary
The applicants, Nidhi Rawat and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking the quashing of a chargesheet dated 25‑11‑2024 and the cognizance order dated 28‑02‑2025 in a case (Crime No. 502 of 2024) involving offences under IPC §§ 323, 504, 506, 376 and POCSO §§ 3, 4. The High Court examined the FIR, the chargesheet and the impugned orders and held that the material on record did not disclose any ground for interference under Section 528. Consequently, the court refused the prayer to set aside the chargesheet and dismissed the application. The court, however, directed that the applicants may surrender within four weeks and apply for bail, which shall be considered expeditiously in line with Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. It also ordered that no coercive action be taken against the applicants during the four‑week period.
Issues considered
- Whether the chargesheet and cognizance order can be quashed under Section 528 of the CrPC
- Whether any ground exists for the High Court to interfere with the proceedings of the Special POCSO Court
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 376, 504, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- quash
- Section 528 CrPC
- chargesheet
- POCSO Act
- bail
- coercive action
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21366 of 2025
Nidhi Rawat And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mahendra Bahadur Singh, Vijeta Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Court No. - 80
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 in revised call,
however, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA appearing for
the State are present.
2. This present application has been filed for seeking quashing of
chargesheet dated 25.11.2024 along with cognizance/summoning order
dated 28.02.2025 and entire proceeding of Case arising out of Case Crime
No. 502 of 2024 (State vs. Pawan Singh and others), under Sections 323,
504, 506, 376 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali,
District Mathura, pending in the court of Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mathura.
3. On perusal of the narration of FIR as well as impugned order and
chargesheet, this Court does not find it to be a case where interference of
this Court is required. No such ground appears to be available in the
present application, on the basis of which, impugned order along with
chargesheet and entire proceedings of the said case, can be set aside.
4. Accordingly, the prayer sought through the instant application, is
refused.
5. Lastly, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that liberty may be
granted to applicants to surrender before the court concerned and apply
for bail to which learned AGA has no objection.
NA528 No. 21366 of 2025
2
6. In view of the aforesaid, the instant application is finally disposed of
with a direction to the court concerned that in case, the applicants
surrender before the court concerned within a period of four weeks from
today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and
decided expeditiously in accordance with law laid down in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and
another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825).
7. However, it is made clear that till four weeks from today, no coercive
action shall be taken against applicants herein in pursuance of aforesaid
case.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
May 7, 2026
A.P. Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…