BIRJU Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Laxmi Kant Bhatt, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Ramesh Prajapati, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The present revision has been filed with a prayer to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 19.9.2019 passed by Special Judge/POCSO Act, Additional Session Judge, Court No. 9, Meerut, arising out of Case Crime No. 446 of 2018 in S.T. No. 306 of 2018, by which the revisionists have been summoned to face trial under Sections 363, 366 and 313 IPC, P.S. Mundali, District Meerut.

(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionists that impugned order dated 19.9.2019 has been passed erroneously by the court below, whereby application 38-B, moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. from the side of the informant/Teetu, has been allowed and the revisionists have been summoned to face trial under Sections 363, 366 and 313 IPC. It is submitted that the said order has been passed solely on the basis of statement of PW-1/informant, Teetu, who is not an eye-witness of the occurrence and that without recording statement of the victim, impugned order has been passed. In this case victim could only be a competent witness to substantiate allegations against revisionists that they were involved in giving effect to the present occurrence because in the F.I.R., it is mentioned that informant was not at home when the victim is stated to have been abducted.