Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1373 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 888 of 2024 Revisionist :- Vikram Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Singh Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and Sri Rakesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2. 2. This revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 13, Saharanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 800 of 2023 (Vikram Singh Vs. Vishal) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had been rejected. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that his son had been molested by Opposite Party No. 2 and since the F.I.R. was not lodged by the concerned police station, the revisionist filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and in that application, it was categorically stated that there are two eye- witnesses of the incident namely Bindar and Pradeep. It has further been contended that the court below, on the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3), sought a report from the concerned police station and the police, even did not call the eye- witnesses namely Bindar and Padeep Kumar and without taking their response, report was submitted wherein it has been stated that the alleged incident is false. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that once in the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it has been categorically stated that there are two eye-witnesses of the incident then any police report, without ascertaining the relevant facts from those eye-witnesses i.e. from Bindar and Pradeep Kumar, could not have been relied on by the court below for rejecting the application filed by the revisionist. It has further been argued that it is also well settled proposition of law that in the matters under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the police report is only just to provide assistance to the court for reaching to a conclusion but the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be rejected only on the basis of that police report. The court concerned, while dealing with the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., has to apply its mind independent of the police report submitted, if any. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has vehemently argued that the contents of the impugned order dated 30.01.2024, in categorical terms, demonstrate that the court below had rejected the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. solely on the basis of the report submitted by the concerned police station and other dispute pending in between the revisionist and Opposite Party No. 2. 6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 has submitted that the court below has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the police report submitted in the matter and on that basis, conclusion has been drawn that the revisionist has filed application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. only just to falsely implicate Opposite Party No. 2 in the alleged crime. 7. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the revisionist in his application filed under Section 156(3) had categorically stated that there are two eye-witnesses of the incident in question. The names of the eye-witnesses have also been given in the application. The court below directed the concerned police station to file a report on the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and in response thereof, the concerned police has submitted its report which is available on record of this revision. 8. The perusal of the police report makes it crystal clear that the concerned police while submitting report had not enquired the matter from the eye-witnesses i.e. Bindar and Pradeep Kumar. This Court is of the view that once the names of eye-witnesses were given in the application itself then the police while submitting the report in the court must have examined those eye-witnesses and unless that is done, the report submitted by the police cannot be relied on by the court below while deciding the application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. So far as other pending disputes in between the revisionist and Opposite Party No. 2 are concerned, this Court is of the view that merely if there exists some dispute in between the parties, the possibility of commission of crime cannot be ruled out on this ground alone. 9. After perusal of the contents of the impugned order dated 30.01.2024, this Court is of the view that the court below has not considered all the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. Accordingly the order dated 30.01.2024 deserves to be set-aside and matter is liable to be remanded to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 13, Saharanpur for considering and deciding the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., afresh. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this revision is allowed. The order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 13, Saharanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 800 of 2023 (Vikram Singh Vs. Vishal) is hereby set-aside and matter is remanded to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 13, Saharanpur for deciding the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. afresh, keeping in view the observations made in this order. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 A. Mandhani Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad