Allahabad High Court
Smt Malti Devi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 30 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:193465
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6159 of 2024
Smt Malti Devi
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Sunita Chauhan, Vaishali Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Ashish Kumar, G.A., Girish Singh
Court No. - 35
HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.
1. Heard Sri Aditya Pratap Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Ms. Sunita Chauhan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. Instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), District-Auraiya in Special Sessions Trial No. 1298 of 2021, State of U.P. Vs. Saras Kumar, under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Achhalda, Disctrict-Auraiya whereby an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the revisionist has been summoned under Section 313 I.P.C.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that a highly belated FIR was lodged bearing case crime No. 0281 of 2021 under Section 376, 313, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act at Police Station-Achhalda, Disctrict-Auraiya against the accused facing trial along with his sister and his mother (revisionist herein). After the investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted only against the accused Saras Kumar who is facing the trial under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act.
4. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that during the trial, the statements of the victim (P.W.-1) and the informant, who is the father of the victim (P.W.-2), were recorded, in which material contradictions have emerged. However, the learned trial court failed to consider these contradictions, as well as the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the victim was in a relationship with the accused, Saras Kumar, and during the years 2017?2018, she was residing with him. Despite this, no complaint was ever lodged by the parents of the victim before the police or any other authority.
5. It is also an admitted fact that the victim and the accused subsequently married each other, and the victim has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and another petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance on the ground of being the legally wedded wife of the accused. These facts were not taken into consideration by the learned trial court.
6. It is further argued that the informant, father of the victim, was fully aware of the relationship between his daughter and the accused. In fact, it is alleged that the informant was exerting pressure upon the accused, Saras Kumar, to transfer 10 bighas of agricultural land in favour of the victim, and upon his refusal, a matrimonial dispute arose between them. Consequently, a highly belated and fabricated FIR was registered. The impugned order has been passed without proper judicial application of mind and without due consideration of the materials available on record. Hence, the impugned order is contrary to law and deserves to be set aside.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has contended that the victim was subjected to sexual relationship when she was a minor. As a result of such relationship, she became pregnant, and thereafter, the accused along with his mother took her to Jhansi and got her pregnancy terminated without her consent, which constitutes an offence under Section 313 I.P.C.
8. It is further submitted that both P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have specifically attributed a role to the mother of the accused, i.e., the present revisionist, and that the learned trial court, after considering the material facts and evidence on record, has passed a reasoned and detailed order upon due analysis and appreciation of evidence.
9. From the documents annexed with the affidavit, namely, the copy of the F.I.R., statements of the victim, informant, and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, and copies of the petitions filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C., it appears that there existed a relationship between the victim and the accused since 2016?2017, and that the victim had been residing with the accused at Etawah since 2017. However, no complaint was ever filed by the parents of the victim regarding her missing, abduction, or kidnapping, which indicates that they were well aware of the said relationship and chose not to object at that time. It further appears that some dispute later arose between the victim and the accused, which ultimately led to the registration of the FIR in 2021. It also transpires that subsequent to the registration of the FIR, the victim and the accused solemnized their marriage after the victim attained the age of majority.
10. Since the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged sexual relationship, the accused, Saras Kumar, was charge-sheeted under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act only.
11. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial court has passed a detailed order, mentioning several facts from the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the objections filed thereto, and has also referred to various judgments of the Hon?ble Supreme Court. However, without properly appreciating the facts and evidence on record, the learned trial court proceeded to summon the revisionist under Section 313 I.P.C., overlooking the fact that the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 merely allege that the accused along with his mother and sister took the victim to Jhansi where her pregnancy was terminated. The said allegation primarily implicates the accused, Saras Kumar, along with the revisionist. Nevertheless, the learned trial court has failed to consider that Saras Kumar himself is not being tried under Section 313 I.P.C., nor does the impugned order disclose any specific role attributed to the revisionist in the commission of the said offence.
12. It, therefore, appears that the learned trial court has passed the impugned order in a cursory manner, without delving into the merits of the case or evaluating the evidence available on record. The impugned order suffers from manifest illegality and non-application of judicial mind, rendering it unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be allowed.
13. In view of discussions made above, instant revision is allowed.
14. Order dated 25.09.2024, passed by the Special Judge, (POCSO Act), District-Auraiya in Special Sessions Trial No. 1298 of 2021, State of U.P. Vs. Saras Kumar, under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act is set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to decide the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
(Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)
October 30, 2025
Karan
