Court No. - 88

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4546 of 2022

Revisionist :- Adbul Rakeeb And Another

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

Counsel for Revisionist :- Dheeraj Kumar Singh

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.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the

order dated 08.08.2022, passed by the learned Additional

District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO) Court No.1,

Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No. 461 of 2022, whereby the

application filed by the revisionists/accused under Section 227

Cr.P.C. for discharge has been rejected.

3. At the outset learned counsel for the revisionists submitted

that he does not want to press the instant criminal revision on

behalf of revisionist no.2 Abdul Shami.

4. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision on behalf of

revisionist No. 2 Abdul Shami, is dismissed as not pressed.

5. So far the revisionist No.1 Abdul Rakeeb is concerned,

learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the impugned

order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.

The revisionist no.1 Abdul Rakeeb is husband of the

complainant and their marriage has taken place in the year

2017. The allegations that the revisionist No.1 used to indulge

in unnatural sexual assault on the complainant or that her

pregnancy was got terminated by administering some medicine,

are thoroughly false. Learned counsel has referred the version

of first information report and statement of complainant,

recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and submitted that

there are material contradictions in the statement of

complainant. Further, in medical examination report of

complainant, it has been mentioned that there was no pregnancy

of the complainant at the time of incident and no definite

opinion has been given by the concerned doctor about the

sexual assault. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted

that no case is made out against the revisionist no.1 but the

Court below did not consider the facts and law in correct

perspective. No statement of the concerned doctor was recorded

during investigation. The averments of the application under

Section 227 Cr.P.C. have not been taken into consideration by

the Court below. The allegations of complainant are not

supported by the medical evidence. Learned counsel submitted

that in view of facts and circumstances of the matter, no case is

made out against the revisionist and thus, the instant criminal

revision is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and

argued that revisionist No.1 Abdul Rakeeb is husband of the

complainant and there are allegations against him that he has

harassed the complainant and subjected her to unnatural sexual

acts and her pregnancy was also got terminated. It is further

submitted that in view of statement of victim and material

collection during investigation, it cannot be said that no case at

all is made out against the revisionist. It was further submitted

that by impugned order only application seeking discharge has

been rejected and charges have not been framed so far. If

revisionist has any grievance against framing of charge in any

specific section, he can challenge the same after framing of

charges, but no case of complete discharge is made out.

7. I have considered rival submissions and perused record.

8. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge or

considering discharge application, the court is not to analyse

reliability of the material on record. The evidentiary value and

its credibility has to be considered at the stage of trial.

Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain

of the court at that point of time. At the stage of consideration

of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an

assumption that the material