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 2 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 3 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 4 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