HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5380 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the material on record. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 8, Shahjahanpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 272 of 2024 (Vidya Devi Vs. Kaushal), Police Station Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur by which the application of the revisionist moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that, the learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 8, Shahjahanpur has dismissed the said application, without going into the facts and the series of events those were narrated in the complaint and the said complaint has been submitted in a cursory manner. Had the, learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Shahjahanpur, have gone through the entire facts, then the said application would have been allowed and the opposite parties would have been summoned. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 8, Shahjahanpur is illegal and arbitrary and the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Vinay Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jitendra Singh Smt Vidya Devi .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has stated that the revisionist herein moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on dated 21.03.2024, and the same was dismissed as withdrawn, without assigning any reason, as to why the said application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been withdrawn. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has further submitted that in the earlier application dated 21.03.2024, the age of the opposite party no. 2 was shown to be 19 years and in order to attract the provisions of POCSO Act, the second application has been filed stating therein, that the age of the opposite party no. 2 is 16 years, without disclosing any reason as to how in what manner, the age of the opposite party no. 2 has been reduced from 19 years to 16 years. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has next submitted that on the face of complaint, initially the revisionist submitted that, she was away from the house and her minor daughter aged about 15-16 years and her minor son Astik aged about 13 years were inside the house. However, in the subsequent lines, the revisionist has submitted that, when opposite party no. 2 was misbehaving with her minor daughter, the son of the revisionist namely Astik and her father-in-law Hukum Singh entered the house and somehow saved her minor daughter from the clutches of opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has further submitted that, if the son of the revisionist was inside the house, then the question of entering the house on making a cry by her minor daughter does not arise and, if the minor son was away from the house then his presence in the house has been stated to be false. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has next submitted that, the opposite party no. 2 has been tried to falsely implicate in the said case. He has lastly submitted that as per the record, the husband of the revisionist and the father of the opposite party no. 2 were charged for the offence under section 107/116 Cr.P.C. and the said fact has been suppressed by the complainant. 5. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the complaint moved by CRLR No. 5380 of 2024 2 the revisionist appears to be based on contradictory facts itself. Moreover, the revisionist has suppressed the action taken against her husband under section 107/116 Cr.P.C. and the revisionist in the second complaint has purposely reduced the age of the opposite party no. 2 from 19 years to 16 years for getting relevant sections under POCSO Act, being attracted in the case. Hence, there is no infirmity in the said order passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 8, Shahjahanpur, hence, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 6. The present revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. September 19, 2025 Vikram CRLR No. 5380 of 2024 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad