Court No. - 67

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2083 of 2023

Applicant :- Rasik Lal

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Ramanuj Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel for the

applicant and learned A.G.A. For the State.

By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the

applicant is assailing the legality and validity of the order

dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Session Judge, Mahoba in

Criminal Revision No. 09 of 2022 (Rasik Lal Vs. State of

U.P. and Another) as well as order dated 18.11.2021

passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division (F.T.C.)

Violence against Women, Mahoba in Complaint Case No.

108 of 2021, under Sections 323, 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC,

P.S. Ajanar, District Mahoba.

The long and short of the case is that a complaint was

moved by the Rasik Lal-applicant on 29.03.2014 against

Anil Kumar- mentioning therein that her minor daughter

Ms. Gayatri (15 Years) was subjected of humiliation by

opposite party no. 2, as he misbehaved with her minor

daughter and now extending threats to the girl and for her

life.

The opposite party no. 2 is a muscle man and a man of

checkered past. In her statement 202 Cr.P.C. the victim

was present herself in which she stated that her age is of

15 years and even then the learned Magistrate Court has

summoned the applicant only under Sections 323 and 504

I.P.C. and then same was challenged before the Revisional

Court and pursuant to the Revisional Court order the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba eventually

added Sections 323, 354, 452, 504, and 506 I.P.C.

There is a consistent stand of the applicant-complainant

that the victim is of a minor girl of 15 years of age and as

per High School certificate-2015 which is annexed as

Annexure No. 9 her date of birth is 16th August, 2000. She

was on the date of incident provenly a minor girl of 13

years and 5 months. When the applicant again agitated this

issue opposite party no. 2 ought to have summoned under

relevant provision of POCSO Act. The Civil Judge, Junior

Division (F.T.C.) Violence against Women, Mahoba have

declined to oblige the applicant-complainant. On

18.11.2021 yet another revision was filed learned

Revisional Court too confirmed the order dated 18.11.2021

and has rejected the Revision No. 09 of 2022 (Rasik Lal

Vs. State of U.P. and Another). The question for

consideration is as to whether the opposite party no. 2

ought to have summoned under the provision of POCSO

Act, in addition to other Sections of I.P.C. i.e. 323, 354,

452, 504 and 506 I.P.C.

I have perused the orders impugned dated 18.11.2021 as

well as 29.11.2022, I have no hesitation to say that both

the orders are prima facie absurd. The reasoning adopted,

that applicant in his application has not mentioned that the

opposite party no.2-Anil Kumar has also committed the

offence under the POCSO Act. The reasoning adopted is

per se off the track and I am not in agreement with the

reasons adopted by court below. The victim or his

representatives needs to narrate the naked story, that's it. It

is the investigator or the law court shall have exclusive

right to add or substrate the relevant sections of IPC or

other enactment depending upon the story of

complaint/F.I.R.

. It is not the burden of the complainant to mention the

sections and thus the reasoning adopted by both the courts

below is unsustainable and hereby quashed.

There is a consistent stand that prosecutrix is of 15 years

of age and as per High School certificate her age is 13

years 5 months at the time of incident. It for is the

Magistrate or Revisional Court have applied their own

judicial mind and summoned the accused in the relevant

section of I.P.C or POCSO Act. court law shall not pass

this burden upon the complainant to mention the relevant

section of I.P.C. in their complaint and thus orders dated

18.11.202