HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2238 of 2024 Court No. - 90 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State. None is present for opposite party no. 2 even in the revised call. 2. This revision has been filed against the order dated 5.3.2024 passed by Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Kaushambi in Case No. 127 of 2023 (State Versus Dharmendra Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 108 of 2023, under Sections-363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Paschim Sharira, district-Kaushambi, by which the revisionists have been summoned under Section 319 CrPC as prospective accused on an application filed by the prosecution. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the trial court has not considered the entire facts and the material collected during course of investigation in respect of Case Crime No. 108 of 2023. Learned counsel also submits that during trial, only prosecution witnesses, i. e. victim and her father, have been examined and no specific allegations have been levelled against the revisionists. However, the trial Court without looking into the testimony of two witnesses, has summoned the prospective accused, (revisionists herein) and submitted that the order dated 5.3.2024 is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that the order passed by Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Kaushambi is in accordance with law and no infirmity Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dhirendra Babu Mishra, Pramod Kumar Pandey, Ravindra Kumar Mishra, Sanjeev Kumar Khare Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vipin Chandra Lal Pooja Devi And 2 Others .....Revisionist(s) State Of Up 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) can be found in the said order. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material available on record, the trial court has reached the conclusion that the statement of the victim is varying from time to time and as per own testimony recorded during the trial, she did not fully support the prosecution version, therefore, revisionists cannot be summoned merely on the basis of the allegations made in a cursory manner. Since it is settled law that the specific allegations should be made against the person, who is likely to be summoned as prospective accused in any case and the Court must record its satisfaction that the accused would be convicted in all probabilities, if he is subjected to face the trial. In the present case, the testimony of the witness is not of such nature on the basis of which, revisionists would have been summoned, therefore, the order dated 5.3.2024 passed by Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Kaushambi is not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 6. In view of the above, revision is allowed. October 7, 2025 HR CRLR No. 2238 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad