Allahabad High Court

RAMAKANT AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 17 May 2026
Bench: DEEPAK VERMA

Holding

The High Court held that a prima facie case exists and there is no ground to quash the proceedings under Section 528 CrPC.

Summary

The applicants filed a Section 528 BNSS application seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Complaint No. 07 of 2018) for alleged rape and offences under the POCSO Act, claiming the complaint lacked a medical report and was filed out of personal enmity. The court noted that summons were issued in 2021, the applicants were aware of the proceedings, filed a revision and an anticipatory bail application, and only after about five years sought quash. On examination of the victim's statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, the court found a prima facie case of rape against the accused, who was alleged to have forced the 13‑year‑old victim. The court held that disputed questions of fact and the trial court's role in evidence appraisal preclude interference at the pre‑trial stage under Section 528. Citing several Supreme Court precedents, the court concluded that no legal bar existed to the continuation of the trial and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 376‑D, 506 IPC and the POCSO Act can be quashed under Section 528 of the CrPC at the pre‑trial stage.
Whether the absence of a medical examination report justifies quashing the complaint.
Whether alleged personal enmity and harassment constitute an abuse of process warranting dismissal of the proceedings.
Whether the trial court's assessment of evidence precludes the High Court's intervention under Section 528.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 156(3), 200, 202, 528, 82
Indian Penal Code — s. 376-D, 506
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5, 6

Subjects

Section 528
quash of criminal proceedings
abuse of process
rape
POCSO
anticipatory bail
prima facie case
trial court evidence appraisal
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8233 of 2026

Ramakant And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

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

Court No. - 74
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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 co-
ordinate of this Court and the Court vide order dated 12.12.2023, disposed
NA528 No. 8233 of 2026
2

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 co-
ordinate 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.

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

5. 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.

6. 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
NA528 No. 8233 of 2026
3

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.

7. 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.

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

(Deepak Verma,J.)
May 18, 2026
Nitin Verma

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…