Manish Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4071 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 16
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 502 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Manish Yadav
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Satyam Singh,Arun Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present revision has been preferred with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 30.04.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.44, Barabanki in Case Crime No.323 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 352, 504 I.P.C. (State Vs. Manish Yadav and others) and discharge the revisionist in the aforesaid case.

The revisionist has filed application under Section 239/227 Cr.P.C. for discharging him under Sections 363, 366, 352, 504 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted in the application that prosecutrix was consenting party and they had done marriage and had love affair. He has further submitted that after marriage the allegation of rape is not sustainable.

The application was opposed by the prosecution and it has been submitted that as per school certificate age of the girl was 17 years at the time of incident. It has been submitted that since the girl was minor, therefore, the accused-revisionist cannot be absolved from the charges. The offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act is made out, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.

After hearing both the parties, the impugned order was passed on 30.04.2022. After going through the record, it is found that the prosecutrix was 17 years of the age at the time of incident. The F.I.R. was lodged against the accused under Sections 363, 366, 352, 504 I.P.C. It has come on record that the prosecutrix was pregnant and given birth to a child but fact remains that she was of the age of 17 years, therefore, entire act of the revisionist comes within the purview of rape against minor girl. The evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to proceed against the accused and application under Section 239/227 Cr.P.C. was rightly rejected by the court below.

I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order dated 30.04.2022 passed by the court below. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 25.5.2022

Atul