HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5785 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge POCSO Act/ Additional District and Sessions Judge,Court No. 28, Agra in Complaint Case No. 110 of 2023, under Section 323, 452, 354 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Sikandra, District Agra, whereby the complaint filed by the revisionist has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that on 29.06.2023, when the daughter of the revisionist was all alone at home, the opp. party no. 2 entered the house of the revisionist and having seen the daughter of the revisionist alone, he began to molest her. In this regard, statements of the victim, her father and her grandmother along with her uncle Radhey Shyam were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that from perusal of the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that there are contradictions in the statements of witnesses recorded before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which are based on the same facts, even then learned Special Judge POCSO Act/ Additional District and Sessions Judge,Court No. 28, Agra has dismissed the complaint. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Phool Chandra Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dadhi Bal Yadav, G.A., Radha Krishna Yadav Guddu .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Learned counsel for opp. party nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the opp. party nos. 2 and 3 have been tried to be implicated in false and frivolous case, though no such incident has ever taken place, as alleged by the revisionist. The allegations made by the revisionist against the opp. party nos.2 and 3 are false. There are variations in the statements of the witnesses at large. 6. Having regard to the fact that the evidence recorded prior to the summoning stage, there are variations and contradictions in the statements and the fact narrated by the different witnesses, which are not stated in the same manner, as the alleged incident took place on 29.06.2023. 7. After going through the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge POCSO Act/ Additional District and Sessions Judge,Court No. 28, Agra, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. No interference is called for in this revision. The revision lacks merits and is hereby dismissed. September 12, 2025 Gss CRLR No. 5785 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad