HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4147 of 2024 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and the learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 22.5.2024, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 380 of 2024 (State Vs. Praveen Kumar and others), under Section 376D, 354, 506 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and under Section 3(ii) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Madrak, District Aligarh. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 22.5.2024, whereby the charges has been framed against the revisionist/Praveen Kumar under Sections 376D, 354, 506 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and under Section 3(ii) (v) SC/ST Act. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has not committed any offence. He has falsely been implicated in the said case. The victim is a consenting party and the FIR has been lodged three days delay. From the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C, she told her age 19 years, but in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the victim assigned her age 17 and half years. There is no injury and medical report. As per High School mark-sheet, the date of birth of the victim is 27.5.2006, whereas the date of incident is 15.1.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he has not Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : A.L.Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sanjay Pathak Praveen Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) committed any offence especially under Section 376D IPC. The impugned order is liable to be set aside and the criminal revision is entitled to be allowed. 6. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the accused/revisionist is named in the FIR. The charge sheet has been filed against him and he is involved in the said offence since very beginning and the evidence are against him. Thus, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. The incident is dated 15.1.2024, whereas the FIR has been lodged on 18.1.2024 under 376D, 354, 506 IPC. It has been lodged against the revisionist-Praveen Kumar and two unknown friends, hence the revisionist is the main accused in said case as per contents of the FIR since very inception. A detail investigation took place and charge sheet has been filed against the revisionist under 376D, 354, 506 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and under Section 3(ii) (v) SC/ST Act, whereas charge sheet has been filed against other co-accued person Ajay Raj and Ravi Kumar, under Section 376D, 354, 506 IPC and 5/6 of POCSO Act. 8. The charges are already framed against the accused. Prima facie, age of the victim was of minor at the time of incident. The submission regarding consenting party and age of the victim, these all are question of fact which could be decided by the trial court after collecting evidence by the prosecution as well as defence. The specific role of the revisionist has been assigned in the FIR and charge sheet has been filed and trial has also began after framing of charge against the revisionist. 9. In view thereof, prima facie, there is no apparent illegality in the impugned order dated 22.5.2024. The criminal revision has no legal force and it is liable to be dismissed. 10. The criminal revision is, therefore, dismissed. February 26, 2026 sfa/ CRLR No. 4147 of 2024 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad