Allahabad High Court
/2006/2025 of MO. ADIL Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. HOME GOVT. OF U.P. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS on 4 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2006 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s) and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed by the applicant(s) for the
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2006 of 2025
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s) and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicant(s) for the following main relief(s):- "For the facts and reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the cognizance/summoning order dated 21.03.2025 passed in Special Session Trial No. 343 of 2025 (State Versus Adil and others) passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Pratapgarh whereby the cognizance has taken under Section 74, 77 of B.N.S., 2023 and 7, B of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and as well as the Charge Sheet No. 04 of 2025 dated 22.01.2025 submitted in Case Crime No. 380 of 2024 under Sections 79, 352, 351(2), 74, 75 of Β.Ν.S., 2023 (Sections 509, 504, 506, 354, 354- A OF 1.P.C. respectively), 9(g)/10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3 (1) Dha, 3 (2) (va) of the S.C. and S.T. Act related to the Police Station Leelapur, District Pratapgarh, so far relates to the applicant, in the interest of justice."
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant(s) submitted that at this stage, he is confining his prayer to seek the benefit of the judgment(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Musheer Alam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116 for which liberty may be given to the applicant(s) and liberty may also be given to the applicant(s) to approach this Court again at appropriate stage for seeking appropriate relief.
4. Learned AGA has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant(s).
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application is disposed of with liberty as prayed for.
6. Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra) and Musheer Alam (Supra), this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officer concerned that for a period of 30 days from today, they would not take any coercive action against the applicant(s) in the aforesaid case. It is made clear that in this regard, no application shall be entertained. December 4, 2025/Jyoti/- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : P.K. Singh Bisen Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mo. Adil .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench