HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4994 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 4.3.2024 whereby the complaint filed by the revisionist has been dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Jude, POCSO Act, Farrukhabad. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for revisionist that the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Jude, POCSO Act, Farrukhabad is illegal, arbitrary and the same has been passed without taking into consideration the totality of the facts, averments made in the complaint and the statements of the victim and two witnesses, recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. 4. Learned counsel submitted that as it has been noticed in the impugned order that there was some civil dispute in respect of the property, the same dispute did not exist at the time of incident and if that was so, the same stood settled prior to the incident and therefore, learned counsel submitted that the victim and other two witnesses have categorically stated that the victim, who is a minor, was taken away by the accused on the pretext that his wife is not at home and therefore, it is difficult to prepare the food and the moment the victim was in the process of preparing the food, the accused mishandled and tried to outrage the modesty of a minor girl. He further submitted that, the similar statement has been recorded by the father and sister of the victim and therefore, the order dated 4.3.2024 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 submitted that opposite party no. 2 has falsely been implicated in the said complaint, as there was no occasion or evidence to proceed in the matter and the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, POCSO Act is in accordance with law and the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, POCSO Act has considered the facts narrated in the complaint as well as in the statements of victim and other two witnesses. 6. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 also submits that there are variations at large in the statements recorded by the victim and other two witnesses and the said complaint has been filed, just for wrecking vengeance against opposite party no. 2. All the allegations made in the complaint are false and baseless and there is no Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Lavkush Kumar Bhatt Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sudhir Kumar Singh Parmar Susheel Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) consistency in the statements of the victim and other two witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC respectively. 7. Learned AGA has also adopted the submissions made by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 8. Having regard to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, POCSO Act has carefully considered the facts disclosed in the complaint and the statements of the victim and other two witnesses. It appears that, there are contradictions at large between the statements of the victim and other two witnesses. So far as it has come in the statements of the witnesses that due to assault on the victim, she started bleeding as a consequences of the injuries sustained by her. However, no such medical report has come on record. Moreover, the victim was examined by a doctor, who found that she was suffering from fever, but the fact of injuries inflicted upon the person of the victim was ignored and victim has categorically stated that though she sustained the injuries, but no such medical test was ever conducted in respect of those injuries, viz- a-viz, she visited the doctor, but no medicine was prescribed with respect to the injuries. 9. From the perusal of the order, there appears to be no infirmity or illegality, hence no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 4.3.2024. 10. The revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. September 10, 2025 HR CRLR No. 4994 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad