HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1616 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 19.3.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) - II, Gautam Budh Nagar, in S.T. No.178 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 0287 of 2016 under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCOS Act, Police Station Sector-20 NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar whereby the application under section 45 Indian Evidence Act moved by the revisionist was rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the case in hand is a case wherein physical relations have been alleged to be made by the revisionist with the victim of this case. It is further submitted that in fact the victim of this case was a consenting party to the relations and no physical relation was made by the accused / revisionist without consent or free will of the prosecutrix. It is also submitted that the victim used to send love letters to the revisionist and in the defence evidence the revisionist has submitted the original copies of the said love letters and when the victim was examined before the Court in her deposition she had flatly denied to write the said letters in her own handwriting. In this event, the revisionist moved an application to summon the school record and answer sheets etc. written by the victim in Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Krishna Kant Dubey, Santosh Kumar Giri Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vivek Singh Farrukh .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) her school and also to send it to handwriting expert to compare the handwriting of the victim on the said records of the school and the letter submitted in the defence evidence to show that the victim of this case was in fact a consenting party to the relations with the revisionist. It is further submitted that the trial court passed an arbitrary and illegal order without applying judicial mind and rejected the aforesaid application which warrants interference by this Court. 4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that there was no need to call for any expert report under Section 45 Indian Evidence Act read with Section 94 of BNSS. It is also submitted that in the impugned order the trial court has made certain observations regarding the conduct of the revisionist and has highlighted his delaying tactics. It has also been observed that the said application was moved at a belated stage. The matter was very old and it was one of the cases of the Action Plan but only to delay the proceedings of the trial the aforesaid application was moved on frivolous grounds. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order carefully. 6. This Court takes notice of this fact that the instant case falls under the POCSO Act and if the charges have been framed under the POCSO Act it is presumed that the victim was a minor girl at the time of the incident. Hence, even if the accused / revisionist succeeds in showing that the alleged love letters have been written by the victim herself with the aid of expert evidence it hardly makes any difference in the facts and circumstances of this case. On the date of the incident, the victim was a minor girl and even if to show her consensual relations with the revisionist the alleged love letters are proved in evidence before the Court it has no legal value. If the victim was minor on the date of incident her consent had no legal sanctity. 7. In the case of Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar vs. CRLR No. 1616 of 2025 2 State of Gujarat, (2015) 7 SCC 359 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that : " It is considered that a minor is incapable of thinking rationally and giving any consent. For this reason, whether it is civil law or criminal law, the consent of a minor is not treated as valid consent. Here the provision is concerning a girl child who is not only minor but less than 16 years of age. A minor girl can be easily lured into giving consent for such an act without understanding the implications thereof. Such a consent, therefore, is treated as not an informed consent given after understanding the pros and cons as well as consequences of the intended action. Therefore, as a necessary corollary, duty is cast on the other person in not taking advantage of the so-called consent given by a girl who is less than 16 years of age. Even when there is a consent of a girl below 16 years, the other partner in the sexual act is treated as criminal who has committed the offence of rape. The law leaves no choice to him and he cannot plead that the act was consensual." 8. In view of the above, the application for expert evidence and also for summoning the school records to compare the handwriting of the victim with the love letters allegedly written by the victim herself is nothing but a futile exercise and abuse of process of law. There is no illegality, infirmity or lack of judicial mind in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The criminal revision lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. September 19, 2025 safi CRLR No. 1616 of 2025 3 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad