Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83994 Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2317 of 2024 Revisionist :- Nizamuddin @ Nizam Opposite Party :- State Of Up Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Jai Prakash Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 21.03.2024, whereby the application for discharge moved by the applicant has been rejected by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act)-1st, District- Amroha. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order impugned has been passed without considering the statements of the alleged victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The said statements were read before the court and it is urged that since the victim had denied commission of any wrong with her and the statements reflect that she had gone with the applicant as per her own will and wish, no offence stands made out. It is also urged that the applicant himself is minor/ juvenile. 2. Per Contra, learned A.G.A. submits that charge can be framed on a grave suspicion and from the material on record, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offense has been committed or that the applicant has been falsely implicated and, therefore, rejection of discharge application does not warrant any interference. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I find that though there are some contradictions in the contents of the first information report, statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., considering the fact that the victim herself had stayed with the applicant for a period of more than 2 weeks and, at one stage, she had alleged commission of rape with her and, later on, stated that nothing wrong had been done with her, the same may be a ground for consideration during the course of trial with all attending circumstances and the entire material on record. At this stage of proceedings, when the matter has been registered under the POCSO Act and there being no evidence, at this stage, to demonstrate that the victim was major, coupled with the proposition of law settled to the effect that a charge can be framed on a grave suspicion, though the applicant may have some grounds in his defense during the course of trial, at this stage, the order rejecting the discharge application is not found to be contrary to law. 4. Learned court below has taken a view by placing reliance upon various authorities and the submission made that the statements under Sections 161 and 164 were not perused by the court below, is contrary to the observations made in the order impugned wherein learned Judge has taken note of the statements and also slight contradictions therein. 5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the defense of the applicant during the course of trial, no interference is warranted in the order of the court below rejecting the discharge application. 6. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Pkb/ Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad