HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1472 of 2025 Court No. - 27 HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. Instant Criminal Revision under section 397/401 CrPC has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.531 of 2024 "State vs. Abhishek Gupta", arising out of case crime no.1221/2023, under sections - 354 (ka), 354 (gha), 506 IPC, 7/8 POCSO Act registered at police station - Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri. By the impugned order learned court below has dismissed the discharge application filed by the revisionist/ accused. According to the prosecution version in present case informant lodged an FIR against the revisionist on 19.12.2023 on the basis of written report with allegations that his minor daughter aged 14 years studies in Class IX in a local school. Accused Abhishek Gupta used to stalk her. He used to touch her in inappropriate manner and when she raises objection he threatens to make her photographs and videos viral on internet. It is also stated that the family members of accused are Journalist and they are exerting pressure for compromise. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that no evidence as provided under section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been produced in support of the allegation that the victim is minor. In fact, her age is 19 years but same has been concealed by the prosecution. He also submitted that during investigation Investigating officer has not collected evidence which could prove innocence of the revisionist. Even the revisionist has provided some photographs, social media chats as well as love Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : J.B. Singh, Vineet Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. Abhishek Gupta .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) letters written by the alleged victim in her own handwriting which show his innocence but the Investigating Officer has not taken the same and not made it part of the investigation. The chats as mentioned in the impugned order itself shows that it is, in fact, a case of extortion on the part of the informant. Revisionist has committed no offence. Learned Special Judge has dismissed the application for discharge without considering the grounds taken in discharge application in proper perspective. It is stated that accused has produced before the Court the extracts of his instagram chats occurred between accused and victim in which victim has admitted in such chats that money lent by the accused to a friend has been received back. Some photos and other documents were made available to the Investigating Officer but he has not added in charge sheet. It was also contended on behalf of accused before the trial court that if the said documents could have been made part of the charge sheet then no charge sheet could be filed. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that learned trial court in its impugned order has duly considered pleas and contentions made on behalf of the accused and considered the scope of Section 215 BNSS which is alternative of erstwhile section 227 CrPC. It is further submitted that it is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge any document produced by the accused which has not been made part of the investigation, cannot be considered for the purpose of discharging the accused. Learned trial court has rightly observed that these instagram chats or any document pleaded in the application for discharge may be considered at the stage of evidence. I find force in the submissions of learned A.G.A. whether the instagram chats relied upon by the revisionist were produced before the Investigating Officer by the accused or victim, it is not material unless the same has been made part of investigation as admittedly the electronic records allegedly produced before the Investigating Officer to prove innocence of the revisionist are not made part of the investigation, therefore, learned trial court has rightly observed that any such evidence cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge. It is also stated in the impugned order that the victim has supported prosecution version in her statement under section 161 and 164 CrPC and she has stated against the accused revisionist in the said statements. CRLR No. 1472 of 2025 2 I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court whereby the discharge application filed by the revisionist is dismissed. Revision is dismissed. However, in light of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the revisionist it is directed that in case revisionist appears before the learned trial court and presses his bail application, the same shall be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law in light of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773. December 19, 2025 mks CRLR No. 1472 of 2025 3 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench