HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4819 of 2024 Court No. - 90 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 9, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 15.6.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Additional Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Court no. 1, Mathura, by which the protest petition filed by the revisionist in respect of Case Crime No. 309 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 354, 336, 452 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act has been dismissed and the final report submitted by the police has been accepted. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that while filing the final report by the Investigating Officer, the statements of accused persons namely, Satish Chandra, Kiran wife of Satish Chandra and Ratan son of Keshi have been recorded and the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not been considered at all. He next submitted that in all circumstances, the statement of complainant's side ought to have been recorded to arrive at an appropriate decision during the course of investigation, but no such statement of the victim's side has been recorded during the course of investigation. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 9 has submitted, that in the first instance a final report was submitted, however the revisionist filed a protest petition and on filing of protest petition, learned Additional Sessions Judge / Additional Special Judge passed an order, thereby accepting the said protest petition and directing the police authorities to conduct a further investigation in the matter. He further submitted that at Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Prashant Yadav, Rajeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra, G.A. Sovaran Singh .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 8 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the second instance when further investigation was directed, the police has carried out the investigation in accordance with procedure and law and there is no infirmity in the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge has rightly accepted the final report and the order dated 15.06.2024 is in accordance with law and calls for no interference by this Court. 5. 5. Having regard to the facts, statements and perusal of the impugned order dated 15.06.2024, it is clear that, initially learned Additional Sessions Judge / Additional Special Judge (POCSO) Act, vide order dated 22.11.2021 held that the statement of the mother of the victim and aunt (Bua) of the victim was not recorded, as well as the statement of any of the police officials deployed on police dial 112 were not recorded. However, the situation remained one and the same, the statement of these persons have not yet been recorded even in the further investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer. Since there is no substantial change in the investigation conducted by the police, except that at the second stage of investigation, statements of accused persons alone have been recorded and the statement of complainant's side were left out, even in the further investigation. Unless and until the prosecution version is also considered and carried out, the investigation cannot be said to be fully complete. 6. Under the circumstances, the revision is allowed. The order dated 15.6.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Additional Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Court no. 1, Mathura is hereby set aside. 7. However, it is directed that the Additional Sessions Judge / Additional Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Court no. 1, Mathura shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. October 7, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 4819 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad