The court is not to analyze the reliability of the material on record at the stage of framing of charges. The evidentiary value and its credibility have to be considered at the stage of trial.

Court No. - 88

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3727 of 2022

Revisionist :- Om Yadav And Another

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

Counsel for Revisionist :- Araf Khan,Lihazur Rahman Khan

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.

for the State. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite

service of notice

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred for quashing

of order dated 01.07.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge,

POCSO Act, in Session Case No.224 of 2022, arising out of

crime number 104/2022, under section 363/366/376/494 IPC

and section ¾ POCSO Act, PS Kasganj, District- Kasganj,

whereby the prayer of revisionist/ accused for discharge was

declined and charges under above stated sections were framed.

The revisionist has also prayed for quashing of the charge sheet

dated 28.03.2022 and entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that impugned

charges and proceedings are abuse of the process of law and

thus, liable to be quashed. In view of the facts of matter no case

is made out against revisionist. The first information report was

lodged against revisionist No.1 alleging that on 17.01.2022 he

has enticed away the minor daughter of the opposite party No.2/

informant but during investigation the daughter of opposite

party No.2 has clearly stated that she has gone with revisionist

with her own free will and that she has married with him. It is

further submitted that in her statement under Section 161 and

164 CrPC, victim has stated that she has married with

revisionist and that as per report of radiologist, the age of victim

has been found between 19 to 20 years and thus, no case is

made out against the revisionists. It is further submitted that in

view of statement and age of victim, no case is made out

against the revisionist No. 1 and thus, no useful purpose would

be served by forcing the revisionist No. 1 to face the trial. In

support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance

upon following case laws;

(i) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sheetla Sahai & Others [2009 0

Supreme (SC) 1404].

(ii) Furkan vs. State of U.P. & Ors, criminal Revision No.

55/2015, decided on 08.09.2015.

(iii) Reena vs. State of of U.P. MANU/UP/2361/2012.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the revision and submitted that as

per first attended school, the date of birth of victim is

11.12.2008 and thus, at the time of alleged incident, victim was

a minor girl and thus, her consent is immaterial. Further, the

record shows that the revisionist was already married and thus,

without any divorce from his first wife, his alleged marriage

with victim girl can not be termed legal. In view of these facts

and circumstances it cannot be said that impugned order is

suffering from any illegality or perversity or error of

jurisdiction. It was submitted that in revision this court has

limited jurisdiction and only it is to be considered whether the

impugned order is suffering from any illegality or perversity or

error in jurisdiction and that in revisional jurisdiction this court

can not quash the charge sheet and proceedings of the case.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the

record.

6. At the out set it may be mentioned that revisionist No.2

Meenesh has neither been charge-sheeted by the police nor the

charges have been framed against her and in fact she is victim

of the incident and thus, the instant criminal revision at the

instance of revisionist No.2 is not maintainable. Accordingly

the instant revision on behalf of revisionist No.2 is dismissed as

not maintainable.

7. So far the revisionist No.1 Om Yadav is concerned, it may

stated that by the impugned order, charges have been framed

against the revisionist for aforesaid offences by declining prayer

of revisionist for discharge. It is well settled that at the stage of

framing of charge or consid