Vindhyawasini vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 15744 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vindhyawasini vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 6 May, 2024

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:80539
 
Court No. - 77
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2978 of 2023
 

 
Revisionist :- Vindhyawasini
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhand Pratap Singh,G.A.,Prabhat Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 03.08.2022 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Court No. 1, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Complaint Case No. 638 of 2020 (Criminal Case No.26 of 2021 (Kumari Bindhasvanai Vs. Nakhil & others), whereby, Court below has rejected the aforementioned complaint case in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that the order impugned in present criminal revision is manifestly illegal and in excess of jurisdiction. Consequently, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court.

5. It is then contended that criminality was committed upon Kr. Vindhyawasini the complainant and her younger sister Kr Poonam. Since the statement of the complainant Km. Vindhyawasini was already recorded before court below, therefore, Court below has erred in rejecting the complaint filed by revisionist on the ground that the statement of one of the prosecutrix has not been recorded. As such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside by this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing opposite party-1 has opposed the present criminal revision. He submits that since the another prosecutrix was a minor and therefore, the sexual offence committed against the minor shall be cognizable by the Special Court (POCSO Act) under the provisions of POCSO Act, therefore, it was mandatory for the complainant to adduce all the witnesses she wished to rely upon in support of the complainant. Since the said exercise was not undertaken by the complainant herself, therefore, no illegality has been committed by Court below in passing the order impugned. As such no good ground for interfernece by this Court in present criminal revision is made out. Consequently, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

7. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionist could not overcome the same.

8. Having heard, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State representing opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. representing opposite party-1 in opposition to the present criminal revision could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for revisionist. In view of above, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain this criminal revision. Furthermore, upon perusal of the impugned order it cannot be said that Court below has either committed a jurisdictional error in passing the order impugned or has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity vitiating the order impugned and thus warranting interference by this court.

9. As a result, the present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.

10. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 6.5.2024

Imtiyaz