Uttarakhand High Court
Reva Mandal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 10 February, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 26 of 2025
Reva Mandal ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2025
Ashish Punia ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
Present:-
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Advocate for the revisionist, through video conferencing.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since same order is challenged in both the
revisions, they are heard together and are being decided
by this common judgment.
2. The challenge in these revisions are made
to the order dated 11.12.2024, passed in Special
Sessions Trial No.802 of 2024, State Vs. Ashish Punia
and Another, by the court of FTC/Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, District-
Udham Singh Nagar ("the trial"). The revisionist, Reva
Mandal, has been charged for the offences punishable
under Section 354 IPC read with Sections 107, 323 IPC
and Sections 9/10 read with Section 16/17 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
("the Act") and revisionist, Ashish Punia, has been
charged for the offences punishable under Sections 354
and 323 IPC and Sections 9/10 of the Act.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
4. The trial is based on an FIR lodged against
the revisionists. The revisionist, Reva Mandal, is the wife
of the respondent no.2, the informant. According to the
respondent no.2, the revisionist-Reva Mandal would take
her daughter in the room of revisionist-Ashish Punia,
where the revisionist-Ashish Punia would sexually assault
her, and it was done on multiple occasions. The FIR has
been lodged by the father of the victim. Both the informant
and the revisionist, Reva Mandal, are husband and wife.
They are staying separate. The victim, the informant and
others have supported the prosecution case during
investigation, based on which, chargesheet was
submitted and proceedings of the trial were initiated.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionists would
submit that there is a dispute between the revisionist,
Reva Mandal and the respondent no.2. Therefore, false
FIR has been lodged.
6. At the stage of framing of the charges, the
impugned order has been passed, which is challenged in
the instant matter. The scope of revision in such matters
is quite restricted, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and
Another, (2012) 9 SCC 460. In Para 12 and 13, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the
power to call for and examine the records of an
inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself
as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings
or order made in a case. The object of this
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error
of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-
founded error and it may not be appropriate for
the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the
face of it bears a token of careful consideration
and appear to be in accordance with law. If one
looks into the various judgments of this Court, it
emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be
invoked where the decisions under challenge are
grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the
provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on
no evidence, material evidence is ignored or
judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or
perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but
are merely indicative. Each case would have to be
determined on its own merits."
"13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional
jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited
one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner.
One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not
be against an interim or interlocutory order. The
Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to
injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with
the question as to whether the charge has been
framed properly and in accordance with law in a
given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the
case substantially falls within the categories
aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much
advanced stage in the proceedings under the
CrPC."
7. It is the prosecution case that, in fact, the
revisionist, Reva Mandal, had extramarital relations with
the revisionist Ashish Punia, and subsequently the
revisionist, Reva Mandal, also started taking the victim,
the minor girl, to the revisionist, Ashish Punia, who
would sexually assault her. This is what the victim has
also stated. The informant also told it to the
Investigating Officer. Their statements are quite
descriptive.
8. What is the evidentiary value of the
statement, it may not be examined at this stage. There
appears to be no such patent defect or error, which may
require any indulgence of this Court. Therefore, having
considered, this Court is of the view that impugned
order does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the
revisions deserve to be dismissed, at the stage of
admission itself.
9. The revisions are dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
10.02.2025
Ravi Bisht
