HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6287 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Meerut in Session Trial No. 1730 of 2023 (State vs. Kartik), arising out of Case Crime No. 0120 of 2023, under Sections 376(3), 506 IPC and Section 3,4(2) of POCSO Act, P.S. Rohata, District- Meerut by which the allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that victim has gone with another student, who happened to be the colleague of the victim and after some time, victim and her friend reached at some Ashram. Thereafter the victim was forcibly taken away to a sugarcane field and the offence under Section 376-D IPC was committed by the accused persons. After the completion of investigation, only one person, namely, Kartik was charge sheeted in the said case crime and names of the other accused persons were dropped in the said charge sheet. After the framing of charge against one Kartik, the statement of revisionist and the victim were recorded during the course of trial and thereafter an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved before the court concerned. After hearing the revisionist, two persons, namely, Umesh alias Chidiya and Vishal was summoned as perspective accused. However, name of another accused, who was stated to be involved and committed the crime, namely opposite party no.2 was left out without summoning. Aggrieved by non summoning of opposite party Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Amit Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mukesh Chandra Gupta, Shubham Prakash Gupta Rampal Singh .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) no.2, the present revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the testimony of the victim is sufficient for summoning any accused and further relied upon the testimony of P.W.-1 namely the father of the victim and the P.W.-2 victim herself. It is further submitted that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have categorically stated the involvement of opposite party no.2 to the extent of her involvement in the perpetration of the crime, though did not participate in the actual commission of the offence. He further submitted that the revision be allowed to that extent of summoning opposite party no.2. 5. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that the allegations made against the opposite party no.2 which is related to the extent that the victim was taken by opposite party no.2 to a particular place i.e. Ashram where other accused persons were found to be present, but no where it came on record or in the testimony of witnesses that opposite party no.2 has incited the victim to visit that place Ashram. It is further submitted that, no where it has come on record that, the accused persons gave any message to opposite party no.2 that she must accompany the victim for the purpose of committing such offence, as alleged. It is further submitted that, no where it has come on record that while the offence was being committed, the opposite party no.2 was a witness or witnessed the incident in any manner whatsoever. He next contended that the only allegation that has come on record, while she left the victim at Ashram, the victim was taken away by other accused persons and opposite party no.2 came back to her house. He further submitted that the opposite party no.2 did not provoke or convinced the victim to be the part of the company to the accused persons and prayed that the revision be dismissed. 6. Having considered the rival contentions and the fact that opposite party no.2 was merely accompanying the victim to a particular place and thereafter has come back. It is also on record the victim and opposite party no.2 were studying in the same school and were known to each other. The movement opposite party no.2 came back to her house, the said offence has been committed by other accused persons and opposite party no.2 has neither seen the incident nor was a witness to offence committed under Section 376-D IPC by other accused persons. CRLR No. 6287 of 2024 2 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned order, as well as the other material brought on record, this Court finds that no infirmity with the impugned order. 8. The instant revision lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 25, 2025 Sanjeet CRLR No. 6287 of 2024 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad