1. Heard Dr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel, Amicus, assisted by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Mr. Harendra Singh and Mr. Satish Kumar Sharma, counsels for the applicant, Mr. Aniruddha Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I assisted by Mr. Rajnish Kumar Verma, Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Ms. Nusrat Jahan, Mr. Bhaskar Mall, Mr. Bishwa Nath Nishad and Mr. Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A.s. for the State.

2. By preferring the present application, the applicant has assailed the summoning order dated 28th February, 2026 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO, Maharajganj, in Sessions Trial No. 0109/2026 (State of U.P. vs. Pankaj) and the charge sheet dated 07th February, 2026 has also been challenged. Further prayer is made for quashing of the criminal proceeding of the abovenoted S.T. case.

3. As per the prosecution story, the mother of the victim lodged an FIR alleging therein that the applicant Pankaj Chauhan was in love with the daughter of complainant, namely Sonakshi Chauhan, having 17 years of age, under the state of threat and coercion, he made physical relations with her and as soon as it was informed to her on 8th February, 2025, the complainant told the aforesaid facts to the parents of the applicant and called upon them for solving the said issue, but they didn't turn up, thus, the information was given to the police station with a request of lodging the First Information Report against the accused person.

4. It is argued by counsel for the applicant that in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 of BNSS, is evident that the alleged victim was acquainted with the applicant for last six months from the date of incident and both were in love and because of the denial on the part of the applicant for solemnizing the marriage, under the state of grievance, the FIR is lodged. He added that the alleged victim was major at the time of the said incident and the false story has been coined. He submitted that the Investigating Officer in a cursory manner has conducted the investigation and ignored the fact of the alleged victim being major as well as the contradiction in the statement under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS.

5. He contends that the alleged victim has been shown as minor only with view to give the severity to the charges leveled in the First Information Report and to put the matter under the offence of POCSO Act.

6. After the aforesaid arguments, counsel for the applicant submits that the interest of justice would subserve if this Hon'ble Court may please to give the liberty to the applicant to move discharge application before the trial court through his counsel, and the trial court may be directed to consider and decide the same within the time stipulated by this court.

7. Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions above noted and submitted that the nature of the allegation is serious. He submits that the Investigating Officer, after collecting the documentary evidence, found that the victim is minor and filed the charge sheet under Section 77, 64(1) of BNS and under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. Lastly, he submitted that the applicant has not been enlarged on bail and therefore he cannot be given liberty to move discharge application.

8. Learned Amicus Dr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, appearing has submitted that there is no bar for moving the discharge application prior obtaining the bail. He submits that the provision of exemption at two stages are provided; first, that Section 205 of Cr.P.C. (section 228 of BNSS), which is the stage prior issuance of the summons, and second,