Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25318 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 180 of 2025 Revisionist :- Rajkumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pratyush Rawat,Rajan Mishra,Soumya Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. Crl. Misc. Case No.1 of 2025 - for condonation of delay. 1. Heard Sri Ayush Tandon holding brie of Sri Rajan Mishra for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State. 2. The cause shown is sufficient. The application is allowed. The delay in filing the revision is condoned. order on memo of the revision. 1. By means of the revison under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. the revisionists have approached this Court being aggrieved by order dated 29.3.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Court No.46, Barabanki in case No.26/2016 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3, 4 of the POCSO Act whereby the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. preferred by opposite party No.2 to summon the petitioner as an accused has been rejected. 2. It has been stated that opposite party no.2 lodged first information report under Section 363 and 366 IPC at police station Ram Nagar, District Barabanki alleging that on 27.12.2015 at about 14.10 house informant's daughter aged about 15 years while going for tuition was enticed away and taken away by the accused and she could not be found. Subsequently, the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded. During investigation and charge sheet was filed in the court where the revisionists were not included in the list of the accused persons. 3. During trial after the testimony of the prosecutrix was over an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was preferred by opposite party No.2. In the said application it was stated that prosecutrix herself mentioned that on the date of occurrence Sangeeta had held the hand of the prosecutrix and threatened her and forced her into the vehicle while Vinod is said to have threatened the prosecutrix with fire arm weapon and Amar Singh put clothe in her mouth so that she could not scream. It was also stated that the revisionists along with Santosh were present inside the vehicle. She categorically stated that Vinod as well as the petitioner sexually assaulted her. Consequently, on the basis of the aforesaid statement the trial court has allowed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the revisionists. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the allegations leveled against him are false and misconceived and during the investigation his role was duly considered by the police and there were various witnesses who were examined due to which his name was not incorporated in the charge sheet filed by the police. He has further submitted that the trial court should have taken cognizance of the said facts before passing any order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.. 5. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the revision. He submits that from the material available on record it is borne out that any person whose name comes with commission of offence then power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the trial at any stage of the proceedings. In the present case, he submits that the prosecutrix was examined as P.W. 3 where she has made allegations against all the accused including the revisionists who assault her. He has further submitted that considering that the age of the prosecutrix was only 15 years, 10 months and 02 days the provisions of POCSO Act have also been incorporated and accordingly submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the revision. 6. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. 7. It is noticed that on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix which has come during the trial the application has been allowed. Needless to say that at the stage of consideration of the said application the prima facie commission of the offence stated by the prosecutrix has to be seen. We find that categorical allegations have been made by her in her statement implicating the revisionists with the said incident. It is not that any vague or passing statement has been made implicating the revisionists in the said incident occurring on 22.12.2015 but specific role extending to committing sexual assault has been attributed to the petitioner. 8. In light of the above, no infirmity in the said order can be found. The revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 2.5.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench