Allahabad High Court

IMTIYAZ AHMAD ALIAS RAJU PILOTversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 1 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

A prima facie offence is made out and the trial court correctly framed charge; the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed.

Summary

The applicant, Imtiyaz Ahmad alias Raju Pilot, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of the charge and discharge in a POCSO case alleging sexual assault of a minor. He contended that the FIR was delayed, the victim was over 18, and no evidence supported the charge. The State opposed, submitting the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS and a medical report indicating the victim was about 17 years old, thereby a minor. The High Court examined the statutory provisions on discharge and charge framing under Sections 227, 228 of the Cr.P.C. and Sections 250, 251 of the BNSS, and relied on several Supreme Court precedents. It concluded that the victim’s statements and medical report established a prima facie case, making the trial court’s charge‑framing proper. Consequently, the application under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in framing charge under the IPC and POCSO Act despite the applicant's claim of lack of evidence and victim's age.
Whether the applicant is entitled to discharge under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Whether the material on record establishes a prima facie case against the applicant.
Whether the victim qualifies as a minor under the POCSO Act.

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 250, 251, 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 227, 228
Indian Penal Code
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 123, 137(2), 5G, 6, 70(2)

Subjects

POCSO Act
sexual assault
minor
discharge application
charge framing
prima facie case
Section 528 BNSS
CrPC Sections 227 and 228

Judgment

Reserved on 23.03.2026

Delivered on 02.04.2026

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28640 of 2025

Imtiyaz Ahmad Alias Raju Pilot
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Moeez Uddin, Tausif Asgar Kaifi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Brijesh Kumar Kesharwani, G.A.

Court No. - 80
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Moeez Uddin, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred for
quashing the charge dated 25.06.2025 and the order dated 28.05.2025 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, Prayagraj, in
Special Trial No.2063 of 2024 (State Vs. Imtiyaz Ahmad @ Raju Pilot)
arising out of Case Crime No.192 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 70(2), 123
B.N.S. and Section 5G/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Koraon, District
Prayagraj, whereby the discharge application filed by the applicant was
rejected. A further prayer has also been made for the discharge of the
applicant under the aforesaid sections.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that a false case
was registered against the applicant and other co-accused on 21.07.2024 in
respect of alleged incident dated 18.07.2024, as Case Crime No.0192 of
2024, under Sections 137(2), 123, 70(2) B.N.S. and Section 5g/6 of POCSO
Act at Police Station Koraon, District Prayagraj. The delay in lodging the
FIR has not been properly explained by the prosecution. The victim has not
NA528 No. 28640 of 2025
2

levelled any allegation against the applicant in respect of alleged offence of
rape. When she was produced before the medical officer, she did not state
that she was subjected to rape by the applicant. No evidence in respect of
age of the victim was collected by the Investigating Officer during the
course of investigation. Therefore, the prosecution against the applicant
under the POCSO Act is illegal. It is further submitted that there is no
evidence against the applicant on the basis of which a charge could be
framed against him. Accordingly, the applicant filed a discharge application
before the learned trial court, which was wrongly rejected vide order dated
28.05.2025 and consequently, charge was framed upon the applicant on
25.06.2025. It is further submitted that the applicant under the facts and
circumstances of the present case is liable to be discharged by this Court and
the order of framing charge dated 25.06.2025 be quashed.

5. It is mentioned by the applicant in the affidavit filed in support of the
present application that the victim is aged above 18 years and as such, no
case under POCSO Act is made out against the applicant. The informant of
the present case did not file the birth certificate or school certificate of the
victim and the learned trial court wrongly overlooked this illegality and
considered the medical report of the victim and on the basis of medical
report, it was opined by the learned trial court in paragraph-9 of the
impugned order that the victim was 14 years of age at the time of alleged
incident. However, as per the medical report/ Chief Medical Report dated
27.07.2024, the victim was aged about 17 years.

6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the
applicant and filed counter affidavit, submitting therein, that the victim, in
her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., has supported
the prosecution case. The victim was a minor girl at the time of incident and,
as per the statement of the victim, involvement of the applicant was found in
the commission of the present offence. The Investigating Officer, after due
investigation, submitted charge sheet against the applicant on 25.06.2025. It
is also submitted by the learned A.G.A. that after perusal of the FIR and the
statements of the victim recorded during the course of investigation, a prima
facie offence is made out against the applicant and the learned trial court did
not commit any illegality in framing charge against the present applicant.
The Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj, vide his report dated dated 27.07.2024
NA528 No. 28640 of 2025
3

opined that the victim was aged about 17 years at the time of alleged
incident, therefore, the victim was a minor girl at the time of the incident.

7. I have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

8. On perusal of the statement of the victim, it is clear that a prima facie
offence is made out against the applicant since the victim stated in her
statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. that she was aged about 14
years and when she was going to attend her coaching on 18.07.2024, she was
abducted by the accused persons. Later on, the statement of the victim was
recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., wherein she stated that she was
abducted by the accused persons and she was subjected to rape by them. The
injuries were noticed on the body of the victim and in the opinion of the
Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj, the victim was aged about 17 years, a
minor girl, in terms of POCSO Act.

9. In order to appreciate rival contentions (i.e. whether the evidence, led by
the prosecution during course of investigation, is sufficient to proceed
against the applicant or he may be discharged at this stage), the relevant
provisions of Cr.P.C. or B.N.S.S. may be adverted to.

10. The procedure for trial before a court of session is provided under
Chapter XVIII of the Cr.P.C. and Sections 227 and 228 which relate to
discharge and framing of charges are extracted below:-

"227. Discharge.-- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and
the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of
the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that
there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall
discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

228. Framing of charge.--(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as
aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that
the accused has committed an offence which--

class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first
class, on such date as he deems fit,and thereupon such Magistrate shall
try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-
cases instituted on a police report;

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge
against the accused.

(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b)of sub-section
(1),the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused
shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims
to be tried."

11. Now, the procedure for trial before a court of sessions is provided under
Chapter XIX of the BNSS and Section 250 and 251 of the BNSS are relating
to discharge and framing of charge, which are reproduced hereunder:-

"250. Discharge.-(1) The accused may prefer an application for
discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of commitment of the
case under Section 232.

(2) If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and
the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge
the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

251. Framing of charge. (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as
aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that
the accused has committed an offence which-

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a
charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first
class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, or the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as
he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in
NA528 No. 28640 of 2025
5

accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on
a police report;

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge
against the accused within a period of sixty days from the date of first
hearing on charge.

(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section
(1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused present either
physically or through audio-video electronic means and the accused shall
be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be
tried."

12. The prerequisites for framing of charge were subject matter of
consideration in Soma Chakravarty vs. State through CBI, reported in
(2007) 5 SCC 403, and it was held that the court can frame the charge if on
the basis of material on record it can form an opinion that the commission of
offence by the accused was possible. The question as to whether the accused
committed the offence can only be decided in the trial, and at the stage of
framing of charge the probative value of the material on record cannot be
gone into and the said material has to be accepted as true.

13. The question as to when discharge of an accused would be warranted in
exercise of powers under Section 227 of the Code in the light of its scope
and object was considered in P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and another,
reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398, and it was held that at the stage of Section
227, the Court has merely to sift the elements in order to find out whether or
not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and if the
judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he
will frame a charge under Section 228, if not, he will discharge the accused.

14. The scope of exercise of powers under Sections 227 Cr.P.C. and 228
Cr.P.C. with regard to framing of charge/discharge again fell for
consideration in Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368, and it was held that at the stage of framing of
charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. or while considering discharge petition
filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C., it is not for the Magistrate or a Judge
concerned to analyse all the materials including pros and cons, reliability or
NA528 No. 28640 of 2025
6

acceptability thereof, and it is at the trial that the Judge concerned has to
appreciate evidentiary value, credibility or otherwise of the material and
veracity of various documents.

15. The relative scope and distinction between Sections 227 Cr.P.C. and 228
Cr.P.C. with regard to discharge of accused and framing of charge was
discussed and explained in detail in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander
and another, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 and it was held that at the stage
of Section 228 Cr.P.C., the Court is not concerned with proof, but with a
strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence and the final test
of guilt is not to be applied at the stage of framing of charge.

16. In State of Tamil Nadu vs. N. Suresh Rajan and others, reported in
(2014) 11 SCC 709, while considering the scope of exercise of jurisdiction
and power by Court at the stage of framing of charges or discharge of
accused under Sections 227 Cr.P.C. and 228 Cr.P.C., it was restated that no
mini trial is contemplated at the stage of considering the discharge
application and only probative value of materials has to be gone into to see if
there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused without any
requirement of going deep into the matter.

17. The exercise of powers under Section 227 of the Code and the matters to
be considered and the extent of inquiry permissible on part of Court was
again subject matter of consideration in Asim Shariff vs. National
Investigation Agency, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 148, and it was reiterated
that the judge while considering the question of framing of charge under
Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose
of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been
made out and the Court, at this stage, is not supposed to hold a mini trial by
marshalling the evidence on record.

18. The relevant considerations to be made by the Court at the stage of
Section 227 of the Code were discussed in M.E. Shivalingamurthy vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru, reported in (2020) 2 SCC
768 and it was reiterated that the Court at this stage, without making a
roving inquiry into the pros and cons, is only required to consider the broad
probabilities and the probative value of material on record is not to be gone
into.
NA528 No. 28640 of 2025
7

19. The ambit and scope of exercise of power under Sections 227 and 228 of
the Code, are fairly well settled. It has been consistently held that the
standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording
of finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be
applied at the stage of framing of charge. The test to be applied at this stage
would be whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether
there is sufficient ground for conviction. The Court has clearly to sift the
elements in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused and if the trial court comes to a conclusion
that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under
Section 228 of the Code, if not, he will discharge the accused. At the stage of
framing of charge or considering discharge of the accused, no mini trial is
contemplated and only probative value of material has to be gone into, to see
if there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused.

20. In the case in hand, in the opinion of this Court, a prima facie offence
against the applicant is made out from perusal of statements of witnesses,
therefore, the trial court did not commit any illegality or irregularity in
framing the charge under the penal provisions of IPC and POCSO Act. The
learned trial court has rightly framed the charge against the applicant on
25.06.2025 since the material produced alongwith the charge-sheet prima
facie, shows that the applicant was involved in the offence of sexual assault,
on the victim who was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident.

21. Learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any
material error, illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the trial court
so as to persuade this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section
528 B.N.S.S.

22. The application stands dismissed accordingly.

23. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to to send a copy of this order to
the Trial Court by the fasted mode. The Trial Court on receiving this order
will proceed further in accordance with law.

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
April 2, 2026
Radhika

Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…