HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3849 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court (First), Amroha in Session Trial No. 92 of 2024 (State vs. Shyam Sundar Iknauriya), arising out of Case Crime No. 369 of 2019, under Sections 417, 420, 313 and 376 I.P.C., P.S. Amroha Nagar, District-Amroha, by which the discharge application of the revisionist has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 were in consensual relationship, however due to one or the other reasons, the said relationship could not continue, as opposite party no. 2 wanted to marry the revisionist, but the revisionist never promised to marry with opposite party no. 2 as he was already a married person. He further submitted that the revisionist is the Social Welfare Office and the allegations, which have been made against the revisionist are absolutely false and frivolous and he has been falsely implicated in the said Case Crime No. 369 of 2019, under Sections 417, 420, 313 and 376 I.P.C. for the purpose of harassment. He also submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed manifest error and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the said order dated 20.6.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is perfectly valid and in accordance with law. He next submitted that the revisionist was a habitual offender and he has indulged in such act Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Devi Prasad Tripathi, G.A., Manish Kumar Pandey Shyam Sundar Eknouria .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) previously with other ladies also. He further submitted that the revisionist is aged about fifty one years, but still he is in the habit of alluring the ladies to enter into physical relationship. He also submitted that the revisionist has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28404 of 2018, under Sections 417, 420, 376 and 313 I.P.C. against the summoning order dated 13.07.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, which was dismissed by this Court while passing a detailed and speaking order on 10.04.2019. He further submitted that once an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed against the summoning order, then the trial will proceed in accordance with law, as the material available at the time of summoning and at the time of framing of charge is one and the same and there is no change in the circumstances, as much as the summoning of the accused is concerned and the charges framed against the accused persons. He further submitted that the revisionist will have ample opportunity to defend his case during the course of trial as only prima facie case is to be seen at the time of framing of charge. He also submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 20.06.2024 is in accordance with law and calls for no interference by this Court. 5. After hearing, learned counsel for the parties, it is a matter of fact and record that subsequent to filing of the present revision, the charge has already been framed against the revisionist, hence the present revision has lost his relevance; this Court has also taken note of the fact that the revisionist was a habitual offender and he has indulged in such act previously with other ladies also; this Court has also taken note of the fact that an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed against the summoning order by this Court by a detailed and speaking order; the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amroha dated 20.06.2024 appears to be reasonable, adequate and justified and calls for no interference by this Court. 6. 6. There is no merits in the present revision and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7. The trial Court record be remitted back to the concerned trial Court. October 6, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 3849 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad