Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, senior advocate assisted by S/Sri L.M. Singh, Prabhakar Awasthi and P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against order dated 8.2.2013 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2012 (State v. Amarjit Singh Shahi) arising out of case crime No. 534 of 2012 under Sections 363, 366, 354, 504, 506, 328, 376 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar whereby the application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the revisionist was rejected.

3. The alleged victim (name withheld) is the daughter of the complainant Capt. Mahesh Chandra Vidyarthi - opposite party No. 2. On 14.3.2012, FIR was lodged by the victim herself against one Shravan and also against her own father alleging that for the last many years, she was being raped by Shravan, who used to visit her house and her father also committed rape with her. A case crime No. 32 of 2012 under Section 376 IPC was registered at P.S. Cantt., District Kanpur Nagar. In the same crime number, identical statement was given by the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 16.3.2012 wherein the victim stated that she consumed poison as her school examination was unsatisfactory, no rape was committed with her by her father or the revisionist. On 15.3.2012, another FIR was lodged by opposite party No. 2 against the revisionist making serious allegations against the revisionist including rape with his daughter. This FIR was registered at case crime No. 534 of 2012 under Sections 363, 366, 354, 504, 506, 328 and 376 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur. Investigation was subsequently handed over to Jai Narain Singh, Circle Officer, who submitted charge-sheet.

4. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that she was drugged and raped by the revisionist and her pornographic photographs were taken by the revisionist on mobile phone and MMS was prepared and she and her father were regularly blackmailed and threatened by the revisionist.

5. Sri Dileep Kumar contends that at the relevant time, the revisionist was posted in Kanpur Nagar in Police Department as a Circle Officer. According to Paragraph 486 (1) (3) of the U.P. Police Regulations, the investigation should have been conducted by an Officer higher in rank than the Officer charged. It was contended that investigation by a Junior Officer is not permissible in law and the investigation is tainted and it has caused prejudice to the revisionist.

6. The second ground of attack is that the victim was examined twice, once in crime No. 32 of 2012 of P.S. Cantt. and on second occasion, in crime No. 534 of 2012 of P.S. Chakeri and both the statements are contradictory. In the earlier statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim did not make any allegation against the revisionist and in her subsequent statement in crime No. 534 of 2012 of P.S. Chakeri, the victim gave the statement as a tutored witness, who was under influence of her father.

7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned order and submitted that contention regarding Paragraph 486 (1) (3) of the U.P. Police Regulations was not raised before the trial Court and this point cannot be raised for the first time in revision. Regarding second point, it was contended that at this stage, the appreciation of evidence is not permissible.

As regards the contention regarding Paragraph 486 (1) (3) of the U.P. Police Regulations, it has been contended that the aforesaid provision is mandatory and any violation of t