Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141697 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6682 of 2023 Revisionist :- Smt. Praveen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Narendra Singh,Santosh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Shahibe Alam Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Wahid Zamal, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohd. Shahibe Alam, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 and Sri Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Muzaffar Nagar in F.R. No. 4/12 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 280 of 2020, under Sections 452, 376, 511, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for revisionist submits, revisionist was informant of the case and she lodged FIR of the present case on 24.10.2020 against opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 and as per FIR on 20.10.2020 at about 9.00 AM in the morning when minor daughter of the revisionist aged about 15-16 years went to the house of one Koshar W/o Yasheen then opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 entered in her house and tried to commit rape upon her and when daughter of the informant and handicapped Koshar resisted, then they started beating them. 4. He next submits, during investigation statements of the witnesses were recorded including the statements of the victim i.e. daughter of the informant and Koshar. He further submits, even the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and although victim in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. supported the version of the FIR but in spite of that Investigating Officer filed final report in favour of opposite party nos 2, 3 and 4. 5. He next submits, when revisionist filed protest petition then court concerned after dismissing her protest petition accepted the final report dated 08.12.2020. He next submits, impugned order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the court concerned is illegal. 6. He further submits, from perusal of the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 it reflects, while passing the same court concerned did not even take notice of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which was most relevant and material evidence. 7. He further submits, law is settled that at the time of deciding protest petition it is the duty of the court concerned to consider all the relevant material available on record. 8. He next submits, as court concerned failed to discharge his duty and did not consider the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., therefore, impugned order dated 31.03.2023 is illegal. 9. He next submits, therefore, instant revision may be allowed and impugned order dated 31.03.2023 should be set aside. 10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 opposed the prayer and submitted that after investigation Investigating Officer arrived at the conclusion that opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been falsely implicated and thereafter he submitted the final report. 11. They next submitted that even from the statements of the independent witnesses it reflects, allegations leveled against opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 are totally false. They further submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 court concerned did not commit any illegality but they could not dispute the fact that during investigation statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate concerned but court concerned while passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 did not even take notice of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 12. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. The instant revision has been directed against the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 by which, protest petition filed by the revisionist has been dismissed and final report submitted in favour of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 has been accepted by the court concerned. 14. The main contention of learned counsel for revisionist is that from the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. it is apparent that she supported the prosecution case but in spite of that Investigating Officer submitted final report in favour of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 and while passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 court concerned did not even take notice of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and thus court concerned committed illegality. The argument advanced by learned counsel for revisionist cannot be completely brushed aside considering the fact that victim was hardly 15-16 years old girl and she supported the version of the FIR in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 15. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. specially in case relates to POCSO Act is having importance and it was the most relevant material and it was the duty of the court concerned to consider her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. while passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 but from the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 it reflects, there is not even iota in the impugned order with regard to statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above in view of this Court, impugned order dated 31.03.2023 is illegal and unsustainable. 17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court concerned with a direction that court concerned shall pass a fresh order after considering the entire material available on record including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 18. The instant revision stands disposed off accordingly. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad