Shivani vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shivani vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim stay until further orders of the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 (Sessions Trial No. 686 of 2023, State vs. Shivani); learned A.G.A. granted six weeks to file counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter; matter to be listed in the first week of August, 2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 12.01.2023 of the Additional Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Kanpur Nagar, directing registration of a separate case against the revisionist and summoning her under Section 319 Cr.P.C., calls for interference by this Court.

Court's answer

Prima facie, the trial court's entire reasoning for summoning the applicant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is based upon completion of evidence in the main Sessions Trial Nos. 1983 of 2018 and 536 of 2019.

Ratio / Principle

The sole basis for separate registration of a case against the applicant is the changed stand of the victim, and when the facts and materials on record are read as a whole they make out a prima facie case of false implication of the applicant.

Key takeaways

Until further orders of this Court, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the Additional Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 13, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 686 of 2023 (State vs. Shivani) shall remain stayed.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under Article 227 jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court against an order dated 12.01.2023 of the Additional Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Kanpur Nagar, whereby a separate case (Sessions Trial No. 686 of 2023, State vs. Shivani, arising out of Case Crime No. 0393 of 2018, under Sections 107, 109, 376D read with 120B I.P.C., P.S. Maharajpur) was registered against the revisionist and she was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., separated from Sessions Trial Nos. 1983 of 2018 and 536 of 2019. The summoning rested solely on the victim's trial statement, recorded after confrontation with the site plan, that the applicant had offered her medicine for headache and taken her to her home where the rape was committed — a version contrary to the 2018 FIR in which the applicant had run away from the spot. The main accused stood convicted on 16.01.2023. Holding that the trial court's reasoning was based only on completion of evidence in the main trials and that the materials, read as a whole, made out a prima facie case of false implication of the applicant, the High Court stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order until further orders, directed the State to file a counter affidavit within six weeks (rejoinder within two weeks thereafter) and listed the matter in the first week of August, 2025.

Court No. - 85

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2163 of 2024

Revisionist :- Shivani Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Dileep Kumar Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

This revision has been filed challenging an order dated 12.01.2023, whereby the learned Additional Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Kanpur Nagar has directed registration of a separate case against the applicant and has summoned her, by separating the said matter from other proceedings in relation to Sessions Trial Nos. 1983 of 2018 and 536 of 2019. The said two sessions trials are in relation to the allegation of rape committed on victim, i.e. daughter of the informant, however, insofar as the present applicant is concerned, she was said to be friend of the victim.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the first information report lodged in the year 2018, the allegation was that two girls, i.e. victim of the offence and the applicant, had gone to attend the call of nature on 13.09.2018, where an offence of rape was committed on the victim, however, the applicant had run away from the spot. It is further contended that during course of recording statement of the victim, she had been confronted with the site plan where the place of incident was shown to be an agricultural field near a temple, however, insofar as the applicant is concerned, the victim stated that it was the applicant who had offered a medicine for headache and, in this manner, the victim

accompanied the applicant to her home where the accused of the offence of rape were already present and committed rape on her. Submission is that the aforesaid statement of the victim was clearly an after thought and in contradiction to the version contained in the first information report. It is further urged that the applicant being a girl cannot be an accused of offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and the learned court below has prima facie found the applicant as an abettor of the offence. It is further contended that the main accused persons have already been convicted on 16.01.2023.

Learned A.G.A. supports the order impugned and submits that considering the statement of the victim herself, the Public Prosecutor had moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and, by a detailed order, the same has been allowed committing no illegality.

Prima facie, I find that the entire reasoning is based upon completion of evidence in the main Sessions Trial Nos. 1983 of 2018 and 536 of 2019 and, for this reason, the present applicant has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. As far as separate registration of a case against the applicant is concerned, the sole basis is the changed stand of the victim and when the facts and materials on record are read as a whole, it would make out a prima facie case of false implication of the applicant.

Matter requires consideration.

Learned A.G.A. is granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List in the first week of August, 2025 .

Until further orders of this Court , effect and operation of the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the Additional Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 13, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 686 of 2023 (State vs. Shivani), arising out of Case Crime No. 0393 of 2018, under Sections 107, 109, 376D read with 120B I.P.C., Police StationMaharajpur, District- Kanpur Nagar, shall remain stayed .

Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Pkb/

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