HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3040 of 2025 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionist, Mr. S.N. Tiwari, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State-opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Rakesh Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2. 2. Revisionist Vikram Singh has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Revision challenging the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 13, Saharanpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Criminal Misc. Case No. 800 of 2023, Vikram Singh v. Vishal. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has treated the application moved by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision has been preferred on the ground that, while passing the impugned order, the Trial Court has erred in law, exceeded its jurisdiction and committed material irregularity. Elaborating upon his submissions, learned counsel for revisionist further submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions of law. It has been passed without considering the material available on record. It is thus contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court, invoking its Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh Bais Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rakesh Singh Vikram Singh .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) revisional powers. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for revisionist that the allegations pertains to a henious offence, i.e. unnatural carnal intercourse. In such circumstances, collection of medical evidence becomes essential, which can only be undertaken through statutory investigation, particularly, by way of medical examination of the victim on the request of the Investigating Officer. However, the Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has failed to take this fact into consideration. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A., Mr. S.N. Tiwari and Mr. Rakesh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the revision. It is submitted that when an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed before a Jurisdictional Magistrate or Special Court, as the case may be, the Court may either direct investigation or reject the application, or treat the same as a complaint, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the Trial Court has chosen to treat the application as a complaint. Therefore, there is neither any violation of jurisdiction nor any failure to exercise jurisdiction by the Trial Court. It is further contended that after giving due consideration to the averments made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., if the Trial Court finds that the averments disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, but the same are beyond imagination or unbelievable, the Court may reject the application. However, if the Court finds that the story presented before it is believable, credible and discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, and further that there is some evidence which can be brought on record only after statutory investigation, then the Court concerned is duty bound to allow the same and pass directions for investigation by the Police station concerned. On the other hand, if the Court finds that though the story presented is credible and a cognizable offence is made out, but there is nothing to brought on record by way of statutory investigation, the same may be treated as a complaint and the applicant may be directed to produce evidence. Thus, no interference in the impugned order is warranted by this Court. 5. The chronology of the development of the case is that on receiving the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by CRLR No. 3040 of 2025 2 the revisionist, the Magistrate issued notice to the concerned police station for summary investigation. In pursuance of the order of the Court dated 26.11.2023, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur submitted his report concluding that the parties are neighbours and have been engaged in litigation since 2021 regarding the alleged marriage and the marriage certificate of the sister of opposite party no. 2. In this regard, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was also filed by the sister of opposite party no. 2 against the applicant/revisionist, his wife, niece and one other person named Amit, who is his acquaintance. There is no evidence regarding any information given to the police at 112 or otherwise. After receiving such report, the Trial Court passed the impugned order. 6. The incident is said to have occurred on 24.09.2023. According to application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., opposite party no. 2 had enmity with the applicant-revisionist and used to harass him. Earlier also they had leveled false allegations against the applicant-revisionist. Having failed in his attempts, he allegedly started extending threats to the applicant/revisionist and his family. It is further alleged that he used to harass the nine year old son of applicant/revisionist, which was complained of by sending a registered letter dated 11.01.2023 to the higher authorities including the S.S.P., Saharanpur, but no action was taken. It is further alleged that on 24.09.2023, at about 5:00 pm, when the minor son of applicant-revisionist had gone out to play outside the house, opposite party no. 2 dragged him into his meeting room from a desolate street of his school, pushing him down with intent to commit unnatural carnal intercourse against nature, shut his mouth, and removed his lower garments. Upon hearing the alarm, witnesses reached the spot, opened the door, and rescued the child. The boy returned home and informed the incident in a distressed condition. According to the revisionist's application the incident was informed to police station Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur on 24.09.2023, but no action was taken. Thereafter, the applicant/revisionist sent a registered letter to S.S.P., Saharanpur, but the same also went in vain. Consequently, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was CRLR No. 3040 of 2025 3 produced. 7. The above-mentioned story does not disclose any material which requires to be brought on record by way of statutory investigation. So far as the collection of medical evidence is concerned, the incident is said to have occurred on 24.09.2023. Pursuant to an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a report was called for from the police station concerned, and in response thereto, the Deputy Superintendent of Police submitted his report on 26.11.2023. The impugned order thereafter came to be passed on 17.03.2025. Thus, by the time of passing of the impugned order, approximately one and a half years had elapsed from the date of the alleged occurrence, and with such lapse of time, no medical evidence would be expected to remain available on the person of the victim. Consequently, the submission advanced on behalf of the revisionist in this regard does not merit acceptance. 8. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for parties and upon due consideration of the material placed before the Court concerned, this Court finds that no point of material or other evidence requiring collection through statutory investigation is made out. The enmity between the parties is admitted not only by the applicant-revisionist but is reflected in the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nakur, Saharanpur. The facts of the case, as well as the evidence, are within the knowledge of applicant/revisionist. If there is any necessity to examine eyewitnesses, the same can be done by summoning them before the Court concerned. In view of the above, the Trial Court has neither committed any error in the exercise of its jurisdiction nor failed to exercise jurisdiction, nor has it caused any material irregularity while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, it is dismissed. April 21, 2026 Brijesh Maurya CRLR No. 3040 of 2025 4 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad