AKASH VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7591 of 2025

Akash Verma
                                                            .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)               :   Himanshu Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)            :   Amarnath Tripathi, G.A.

Court No. - 89
             HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

1. List revised. Heard learned counsel for the Revisionist and the learned
AGA for the State. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the impugned order
dated 22.09.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge
(POCSO Act), Court No. 28, Agra. By the said order, the application of the
first informant under Section 358(2) BNSS [formerly Section 319 Cr.P.C.]
was allowed, and the learned trial court summoned the present Revisionist to
face trial under Sections 376, 506, and 120-B of the IPC (corresponding to
Sections 64, 351(1), and 61(2) of the BNS) in Sessions Case No. 1094 of
2023 (State vs. Uday Verma), arising out of Case Crime No. 20 of 2024,
registered under Sections 376, 384 IPC and 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police
Station Hariparvat, District Agra.

3. The facts giving rise to the present case, in brief, are that the
informant/complainant lodged an FIR on 13.01.2023. It was alleged that his
minor daughter (the victim), a 16-year-old student, was induced and lured
away from school by one Uday Verma. The accused allegedly took obscene
photographs of the victim under duress, used them for intimidation, and
subjected her to non-consensual sexual exploitation. Furthermore, the
accused recorded videos of these acts to blackmail the victim, demanding
Rs. 50,000 as extortion. Due to trauma, the victim stopped attending school.
Upon being questioned by the informant, she revealed the ordeal and handed
over a pen drive containing the explicit material. The incident traces back to
14.09.2022.

4. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement
of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she reiterated the FIR
allegations but did not level specific allegations against the present
                                                           CRLR No. 7591 of 2025
                                 2

Revisionist. Consequently, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge
sheet only against Uday Verma. However, in her statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim alleged that the Revisionist was present on
the spot and that both the co-accused Uday Verma and the Revisionist
committed rape upon her. Based on this, an application under Section 358(2)
BNSS was moved to summon the Revisionist, Akash Verma, which was
allowed by the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the Revisionist was
neither named in the FIR nor in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. His
name surfaced for the first time in the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement without
any explanation for the delay. It was further argued that the Investigating
Officer had initially investigated Akash Verma but subsequently submitted a
Final Report in his favor. Learned counsel further contended that the
implication is a result of prior enmity between the families and that the trial
court passed the summoning order in a cursory, arbitrary manner.

6. Per contra, the learned AGA vehemently opposed the revision, stating that
in cases of sexual violence, victims often hesitate to disclose the full extent
of the ordeal initially due to fear or "public shame." It was submitted that the
victim felt comfortable and fearless only while recording her statement
before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. learned AGA submitted that
the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence of the victim and the medical
reports, which supported the allegations against the Revisionist.

7. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the record, it appears
that while the Revisionist was not named in the initial FIR or the Section
161 statement, the victim specifically detailed his role in her Section 164
Cr.P.C. statement regarding a second incident occurring after Diwali. This
narration was also found to be consistent with the medical examination
reports.

8. It is a well-established principle that at the stage of summoning, the trial
court is required to evaluate whether the material on record discloses a grave
suspicion. The proposed accused has no right to lead evidence at this stage.
Furthermore, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited; it is not
intended for the re-appreciation of evidence as if it were an appeal.

9. For consideration of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble
Apex Court has laid down the guiding principle in the case of Hardeep
Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors, (2014) 3 SCC 92 (Constitutional
Bench), that the power to summon a person as an accused under Section 319
Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary and it should be exercised
sparingly for summoning any person. The evidence adduced before the
                                                                                                CRLR No. 7591 of 2025
                                                                      3

                                    Court must be strong and cogent suggesting a greater than prima-facie case
                                    though it need not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence
                                    should be such that if unrebutted it would lead to the conviction of the
                                    person being summoned.

                                    10. If in any case an accused has been discharged by the trial Court even
                                    then the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked against such
                                    person. This principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
                                    case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs The State Of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC
                                    289, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the necessity of strong and
                                    cogent evidence as laid down in Hardeep Singh (supra) and further
                                    clarified that merely because a person was discharged does not shield them
                                    from being summoned if, during the trial of the co-accused , strong evidence
                                    surfaces against them.

                                    11. In a case of Juhru and others Vs. Karim and another (2023) 5 SCC
                                    406, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the requirement of high standard
                                    of evidence. The Hon'ble Court stressed that the standard for summoning an
                                    additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is much higher than the
                                    standard required for framing a charge. It must be strong and credible
                                    evidence, pointing to the person's complicity.

                                    12. The reliance has been placed by the Revisionist on the case of Brijendra
                                    Singh & Ors. versus State of Rajeasthan, 2017 (7) SCC 706, wherein, the
                                    Hon'ble Apex Court has referred the Hardeep Singh (supra) case which is
                                    already mentioned herein above.

                                    13. In the present case, the victim's statement indicates the direct
                                    involvement of the Revisionist. Whether her statement is entirely truthful or
                                    contains improvements is a matter of trial and cross-examination. At this
                                    stage, the material is sufficient to raise a strong suspicion of the Revisionist's
                                    involvement in the alleged sexual offense.

                                    14. A perusal of the record shows no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional
                                    error in the impugned order. The learned trial court has reasonably exercised
                                    its discretion based on the victim's testimony and corroborative medical
                                    examination.

                                    15. Accordingly, the revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

                                    March 18, 2026
                                    I.A.Siddiqui
                                                                                     (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad