Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41239 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 755 of 2025 Revisionist :- Vipin Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Amar Nath Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. Shri Awadhesh Kumar Pal, Advocate has filed his 'Vakalatynama' on behalf of respondent no.2, which is taken on record. Heard, Shri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. and Shri Awadhesh Kumar Pal, learned counsel for respondent no.2. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the objections filed by the revisionist against the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. have not been considered by the trial court before passing the impugned order dated 02.06.2025, whereas without considering the same the impugned order could not have been passed. The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the revisionist could not be disputed by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 fairly states that the matter may be remitted back to the trial court to take a fresh decision in the matter. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is apparent that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent no.2 on 03.02.2025 against which an objection was filed by the revisionist on 17.03.2025 taking certain objections regarding maintainability of the application as well, but those objections have neither been considered nor dealt with by the trial court. It is settled law that once the objection to an application has been filed, the same are required to be considered by the court concerned before passing any order. Thus the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. The impugned order dated 02.06.2025 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.962 of 2024; State Versus Sonu and others passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Hardoi is hereby set aside. The trial court shall take fresh decision on the application moved by the respondent no.2 in accordance with law and shall pass the order after considering the objections filed by the revisionist by reasoned and speaking order expeditiously and considering that the application should not become infructuous. In the aforesaid terms the revision is allowed. . ..........................................(Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Banswar Digitally signed by :- RAM NARESH BANSWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench