SEEMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ambika Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State.

(2.) By means of this instant revision filed under Sec. 397/401 Cr.P.C. the revisionist has challenged the validity of the order dtd. 21/12/2023 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional District and Session Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No.1268 of 2023 whereby an application under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been rejected. In the application under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the revisionist had alleged that younger brother of opposite party No.6 was having a love affair with a girl. However, marriage of that girl was settled with some other person, due to which the younger brother of opposite party No.6 had committed suicide in the month of June' 2023. An FIR was lodged in this regard on 1/7/2023 against the complainant's son Anil Kumar Kanojia. On 3/7/2023, the opposite party Nos.6, 7 and 8 entered the revisionist's house at about 04:30 PM, her 15 years old daughter was alone in the house, the aforesaid persons started searching for the revisionist's son Anil Kumar Kanojia and when her daughter objected against it, the opposite party No.6 molested and raped her and the opposite party Nos.7 and 8 had beaten her and had bitten on her cheeks. A complaint in this regard was given to the police on 3/7/2023 itself and thereafter complaint were sent to various authorities through registered post on 30/8/2023.

(3.) The trial court took into consideration the facts averred in the application under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. and noted that although the revisionist has alleged that she had given information of the incident at the police station on 3/7/2023 but information was given to the police Commissioner through registered post only on 30/8/2023. On 1/7/2023, a case was lodged against the complainant's son for abetting the brother of opposite party Nos.6, 7 and 8 to commit suicide. The allegation of commission of rape merely two days thereafter appears to be wholly unnatural. There are no witnesses of the alleged incident. There is no medico-legal examination report to support the allegation. Relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava Versus State of U.P.: 2015 (6) SCC 287, the trial Court rejected the application under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C.