Rinki Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rinki Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty expressly preserved to the revisionist to pursue the litigation and participate in the trial by adducing whatever appropriate evidence remains (para 17); no other relief granted.

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision filed by Rinki challenging the rejection of her application for re-examination (her evidence, including cross-examination, having been completed on 17.02.2016, about nine years earlier) deserves to be allowed.

Court's answer

The present revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed; accordingly, the revision seeking re-examination of the revisionist about nine years after her evidence was completed on 17.02.2016 is dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

Notwithstanding the dismissal, it shall remain open to the revisionist to pursue the litigation, to participate in the trial by adducing appropriate evidence, if any left, and to take the matter to its legal course.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Court No. 93 - Criminal Revision No. 2564 of 2024, Rinki (Revisionist) versus State of U.P. and Another; coram Hon'ble Harvir Singh, J.; decision dated September 10, 2025. The revisionist challenged the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Rape and POCSO Act), Court No. 2, Fatehpur, by which her re-examination was rejected (the passage also attributes the rejection to the Special Judge, POSCO Act/A.S.J., Court No. 4, Fatehpur). As a matter of record, her examination-in-chief was recorded on 02.11.2015 and cross-examination completed on 17.02.2016, completing her evidence about nine years earlier. Background: consensual relationship with opposite party no. 2, settlement arrived at, and wish not to pursue litigation; the trial court declined compounding in terms of Section 320 IPC since the case crime involved Sections 376 and 504 IPC and Section 4 POSCO Act, treated as non-compoundable. The revision was filed in February 2024. The learned AGA submitted that about nine years had elapsed, no cogent or plausible grounds were raised, the delay was unexplained and inordinate, and litigation cannot continue at the whims of a particular witness. Finding the revision devoid of merit, the Hon'ble Court dismissed it; however, it remained open to the revisionist to pursue the litigation, participate in the trial by adducing appropriate evidence, if any left, and take the matter to its legal course.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2564 of 2024

Rinki

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....O
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Atul Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Rishab Agrawal, G.A.
Court No.- 93

.....Opposite Party(s)

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

It is 2:30 p.m. list has been revised. In the forenoon the case called out both the parties were present and the parties made joint request for case be taken up by 2:00'Clock after lunch. However, none present on behalf of either of the parties, hence the revision is taken up on the basis of available record.

The revisionist herein has challenged the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Rape and POCSO Act), Court No. 2, Fatehpur, by which the re-examination of revisionist has been rejected by the Special Judge, POSCO Act/A.S.J., Court No. 4, Fatehpur.

It can be seen from the record that initially the revisionist was in consensual relationship with the opposite party no. 2 for quite long time and a settlement was arrived between the parties, that the revisionist dose not intend to pursue the litigation. However, the trial court did not accede the request of the revisionist on the ground that the sections involved in the case crime are 376 and 504 IPC and Section 4 POSCO Act and therefore, it is out of the purview of the Special Judge, POSCO Act/A.S.J., Court No. 4, Fatehpur to compound the case in terms of Section 320 IPC and therefore, the said request was declined on the ground of the offence being noncompoundable. Thus, as a matter of record, it can be seen from the order dated 06.03.2023 that the examination-in-chief of the revisionist was recorded on 02.11.2015 and cross-examination of the revisionist was completed on 17.02.2016. Hence the evidence of the revisionist was completed on 17.02.2016 i.e. about 9 years back. The present revision has

CRLR No. 2564 of 2024

2

been field in February 2024, and the said application before the Additional Sessions Judge, (Rape and POCSO Act), Court No. 2, Fatehpur was decided on 06.03.2023.

Learned AGA has submitted that about 9 years have gone, the time of evidence of revisionist was recorded and was completed. The revisionist after a substantial period of time has filed an application for re-examination of herself, but no cogent or plausible grounds have been raised in the present revision and the period of about 9 years is unexplained, that there is an inordinate delay is taken the matter to legal course for re-examination of the witness, by the present revisionist herein. Learned AGA has further submitted that if, such applications are permitted to be allowed, there would be no end to the litigations, as such every case has to come to an end, and therefore, the litigation can not be continued at the whims of a particular witness, as and when the witness, who intends to examine or re-examine herself.

It appears that the present revision devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

However, it shall remain open to the revisionist to pursue the litigation and to participate in the trial by adducing appropriate evidence, if any left, and take the matter to its legal course.

Accordingly, the present revisions is dismissed .

September 10, 2025 Vikram

(Harvir Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad