VIKRAM SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3040 of 2025

Vikram Singh
                                                   .....Revisionist(s)
                              Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                       .....Opposite
                                                             Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)         :   Ashok Kumar Singh Bais
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)      :   G.A., Rakesh Singh

Court No. - 45
          HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of revisionist, Mr. S.N. Tiwari, the learned A.G.A.
appearing on behalf of State-opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Rakesh
Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party
no. 2.

2. Revisionist Vikram Singh has approached this Court by means
of present Criminal Revision challenging the order dated
17.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/
Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 13, Saharanpur
(hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Criminal Misc.
Case No. 800 of 2023, Vikram Singh v. Vishal. By the impugned
order, the Trial Court has treated the application moved by the
revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision
has been preferred on the ground that, while passing the
impugned order, the Trial Court has erred in law, exceeded its
jurisdiction and committed material irregularity. Elaborating
upon his submissions, learned counsel for revisionist further
submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and against
the provisions of law. It has been passed without considering the
material available on record. It is thus contended that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court, invoking its
                                                    CRLR No. 3040 of 2025
                           2


revisional powers. It is further submitted by the learned counsel
for revisionist that the allegations pertains to a henious offence,
i.e. unnatural carnal intercourse. In such circumstances, collection
of medical evidence becomes essential, which can only be
undertaken through statutory investigation, particularly, by way
of medical examination of the victim on the request of the
Investigating Officer. However, the Trial Court, while passing the
impugned order, has failed to take this fact into consideration.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A., Mr. S.N. Tiwari and Mr. Rakesh
Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.
2 have vehemently opposed the revision. It is submitted that
when an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed before
a Jurisdictional Magistrate or Special Court, as the case may be,
the Court may either direct investigation or reject the application,
or treat the same as a complaint, depending upon the facts and
circumstances of the case. In the present case, the Trial Court has
chosen to treat the application as a complaint. Therefore, there is
neither any violation of jurisdiction nor any failure to exercise
jurisdiction by the Trial Court. It is further contended that after
giving due consideration to the averments made in the application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., if the Trial Court finds that the
averments disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, but
the same are beyond imagination or unbelievable, the Court may
reject the application. However, if the Court finds that the story
presented before it is believable, credible and discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, and further that there is
some evidence which can be brought on record only after
statutory investigation, then the Court concerned is duty bound to
allow the same and pass directions for investigation by the Police
station concerned. On the other hand, if the Court finds that
though the story presented is credible and a cognizable offence is
made out, but there is nothing to brought on record by way of
statutory investigation, the same may be treated as a complaint
and the applicant may be directed to produce evidence. Thus, no
interference in the impugned order is warranted by this Court.

5. The chronology of the development of the case is that on
receiving the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by
                                                     CRLR No. 3040 of 2025
                           3


the revisionist, the Magistrate issued notice to the concerned
police station for summary investigation. In pursuance of the
order of the Court dated 26.11.2023, the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Saharanpur submitted his report concluding that the
parties are neighbours and have been engaged in litigation since
2021 regarding the alleged marriage and the marriage certificate
of the sister of opposite party no. 2. In this regard, an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was also filed by the sister of
opposite party no. 2 against the applicant/revisionist, his wife,
niece and one other person named Amit, who is his acquaintance.
There is no evidence regarding any information given to the
police at 112 or otherwise. After receiving such report, the Trial
Court passed the impugned order.

6. The incident is said to have occurred on 24.09.2023. According
to application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., opposite party no. 2
had enmity with the applicant-revisionist and used to harass him.
Earlier also they had leveled false allegations against the
applicant-revisionist. Having failed in his attempts, he allegedly
started extending threats to the applicant/revisionist and his
family. It is further alleged that he used to harass the nine year
old son of applicant/revisionist, which was complained of by
sending a registered letter dated 11.01.2023 to the higher
authorities including the S.S.P., Saharanpur, but no action was
taken. It is further alleged that on 24.09.2023, at about 5:00 pm,
when the minor son of applicant-revisionist had gone out to play
outside the house, opposite party no. 2 dragged him into his
meeting room from a desolate street of his school, pushing him
down with intent to commit unnatural carnal intercourse against
nature, shut his mouth, and removed his lower garments. Upon
hearing the alarm, witnesses reached the spot, opened the door,
and rescued the child. The boy returned home and informed the
incident in a distressed condition. According to the revisionist's
application the incident was informed to police station Rampur
Maniharan, District Saharanpur on 24.09.2023, but no action was
taken. Thereafter, the applicant/revisionist sent a registered letter
to S.S.P., Saharanpur, but the same also went in vain.
Consequently, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was
                                                                                             CRLR No. 3040 of 2025
                                                                   4


                                        produced.

                                        7. The above-mentioned story does not disclose any material
                                        which requires to be brought on record by way of statutory
                                        investigation. So far as the collection of medical evidence is
                                        concerned, the incident is said to have occurred on 24.09.2023.
                                        Pursuant to an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a report
                                        was called for from the police station concerned, and in response
                                        thereto, the Deputy Superintendent of Police submitted his report
                                        on 26.11.2023. The impugned order thereafter came to be passed
                                        on 17.03.2025. Thus, by the time of passing of the impugned
                                        order, approximately one and a half years had elapsed from the
                                        date of the alleged occurrence, and with such lapse of time, no
                                        medical evidence would be expected to remain available on the
                                        person of the victim. Consequently, the submission advanced on
                                        behalf of the revisionist in this regard does not merit acceptance.

                                        8. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned
                                        counsel for parties and upon due consideration of the material
                                        placed before the Court concerned, this Court finds that no point
                                        of material or other evidence requiring collection through
                                        statutory investigation is made out. The enmity between the
                                        parties is admitted not only by the applicant-revisionist but is
                                        reflected in the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of
                                        Police, Nakur, Saharanpur. The facts of the case, as well as the
                                        evidence, are within the knowledge of applicant/revisionist. If
                                        there is any necessity to examine eyewitnesses, the same can be
                                        done by summoning them before the Court concerned. In view of
                                        the above, the Trial Court has neither committed any error in the
                                        exercise of its jurisdiction nor failed to exercise jurisdiction, nor
                                        has it caused any material irregularity while passing the
                                        impugned order. Therefore, the present revision is liable to be
                                        dismissed.

                                        9. Accordingly, it is dismissed.


                                        April 21, 2026
                                        Brijesh Maurya
                                                                               (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad