HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4439 of 2024 Court No. - 68 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Shishir Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed to set-aside the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 passed by Special Judge (Exclusive Court/POCSO Act)/Additional District Judge, Etah in Sessions Trial No. 270 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 31 of 2024, State Vs. Pushpendra, u/s 328, 342, 376 & 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Etah, pending before Special Judge (Exclusive Court/POCSO Act)/Additional District Judge, Etah. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that F.I.R. in question has been lodged after about 3 years of the date of incident. It is next submitted that the victim herself left the house with the revisionist and willingly married on 20.01.2023. The Marriage Registration Officer also issued marriage certificate on 31.03.2023. Thereafter, when the girl returned to her home only then the impugned proceeding has been initiated. As it was a case of consent between the parties and the age recorded in the victim's medical examination report is about 19 years, therefore, no case is made out and court below has erroneously rejected the discharge application of the revisionist. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that performance of marriage and thereafter, issuance of marriage certificate to the revisionist and victim and also delayed lodging of the F.I.R. are the defense of the revisionist which cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge and there is sufficient material in case diary to frame charge against the revisionist. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. Considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of record, it Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shishir Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pushpendra Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) appears that the victim girl in her statements u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. made specific allegation of rape against the revisionist, therefore, prima facie, case is made out for framing of charge. However, the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that the victim herself left her house and got married to the revisionist on 20.01.2023. Subsequently, marriage certificate was also issued by the Marriage Registration Officer on 31.03.2023, therefore, victim is legally wedded wife of the revisionist, are the defense of the revisionist which cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge and these grounds can be considered during trial or during the proceeding for quashing the proceeding u/s 528 BNSS. Therefore, no case for interference is made out. 6. The present revision is accordingly, dismissed. September 8, 2025 KS CRLR No. 4439 of 2024 2 (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KISHAN SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad