HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 729 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 25.11.2024, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Auraiya, in Complaint Case No. 563 of 2024, Vanshika v. Sonu Dhobi and another, Police Station Phaphund, District Auraiya. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order dated 25.11.2024 has been passed illegally and unjustifiably. It is contended that there is sufficient evidence for proceeding with the case, but the complaint has been wrongly rejected under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 4. It is further submitted that there are no contradictions in the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., and that the offences have been committed by opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 has submitted that the present complaint is a counterblast case. There is neither any evidence nor any medical support for the allegations. The complaint has been filed under Sections 354, 504, and 506 I.P.C., read with Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act. 6. It is submitted that the complainant, aged about 17 years, was returning on 04.06.2024 at about 9:00 p.m. when, on the way, the opposite parties stopped her and caught hold of her hand with the intention of committing a wrongful act. They allegedly attempted to snatch her locket after placing a Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Raghuraj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bali Raj, G.A., Phool Singh Vanshika .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) country-made pistol upon her. During the incident, the locket worn around the neck of the victim broke. Upon the victim, her mother, and her grandmother raising an alarm, all the opposite parties allegedly waved the country-made pistol in their hands and threatened to kill the victim and her family members, saying, "Today you are saved; next time we will see and commit the wrongful act." Thereafter, they fled from the spot. 7. On hearing the alarm raised by the complainant, her mother, and her grandmother, certain persons who were returning after hearing Ramkatha allegedly caught Raunak and beaten him. Thereafter, the complainant, along with her mother and grandmother, reached home and narrated the incident to her father. Her father did not go to the police station during the night due to fear, as opposite party Sonu is a history-sheeter and allegedly of criminal nature. Several cases are stated to be pending against him. On the next day, the complainant, along with her father, went to the police station and submitted a written application regarding the incident; however, no F.I.R. was registered. Subsequently, on 08.06.2024, the complainant sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Auraiya, but no action was taken. Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. There is neither any medical evidence nor any supporting evidence on record. 8. The learned trial court, after perusing the material available on record, passed the impugned order relying upon the settled legal position. The trial court specifically observed that opposite party Raunak and Dharmendra who is the brother of Anshul, had lodged Case Crime No. 193 of 2024 under Sections 323, 504, and 506 I.P.C., along with Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act, against the family members of the victim on 03.06.2024, whereas the present incident is alleged to have occurred on the next day, i.e., 04.06.2024. 9. The learned trial court observed that the present complaint appears to have been lodged as a cross-case. As per the report of the concerned police station, a scuffle had taken place between the family of the victim and the opposite parties. No substance was found in the allegations made in the complaint. 10. The learned trial court relied upon the law laid down by the High Court in Ghanshyam Shukla v. State of U.P., 2006 (2) ACJ 309, wherein it was held that the trial court has to see whether a prima facie case exists. CRLR No. 729 of 2025 2 Clarifying the term "prima facie case," it was held that "prima facie" refers to evidence sufficient to summon the accused for trial. It does not mean evidence on the basis of which the conviction of the accused is likely. 11. There is neither any medical evidence nor any cogent supporting evidence submitted by the complainant in support of her complaint. On the contrary, the opposite parties had already filed a case against the complainant's family under the provisions of the I.P.C. as well as the SC/ST Act. Thereafter, the present complaint was filed by the victim. There is strong force in the submission that the complaint has been filed to create undue pressure as a cross-case. 12. There is neither any illegality nor any irregularity in the impugned order. 13. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. February 25, 2026 K.K. Maurya CRLR No. 729 of 2025 3 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad