SATYAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Madhesia, the learned counsel for revisionist and learned AGA for the State. None is present for opposite party Nos.2 and 3, despite sufficient service.

(2.) Satyam Sharma, the revisionist, has filed the present criminal revision being aggrieved by the order dtd. 21/2/2025, passed by Additional District Judge/FTC-II (for trying-cases of crime against women) at Varanasi in Session Case No.1150 of 2021 titled State vs. Satyam Sharma, arising out of Case Crime No.99 of 2021 under Ss. 376, 506 IPC and Sec. 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000, Police Station-Chetganj, District-Varanasi.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that an application under Sec. 216 Cr.P.C. (12-Ka) has been filed by the complainant of the case, namely, Munna Lal Goswami and seeks the permission that the charges against the POCSO Act shall be altered against the accused Satyam Sharma. The revisionist has submitted that he had filed objection 16-Kha before the learned trial court and took this plea that the charge-sheet has been filed and the evidence, in the case, is already complete. The applications filed by the complainant under Sec. 216 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. The marriage between victim and accused took place on 31/1/2020 at Shitla Mata Mandir and it was further registered at court on 27/2/2020.