Dismissed¶24

Sakuntala Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2025CRLR/3158/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court criminal revision (CRLR 3158 of 2024, Divesh Chandra Samant J., 04.11.2025) dismissing challenge to Special Judge (POCSO) Auraiya order dated 12.03.2024 rejecting complaint under S. 203 Cr.P.C.; grounds: no medical report supporting POCSO allegation, contradictions in statements of victim and witness Guddi Devi under Ss. 200/202 Cr.P.C., enmity/counter-case to Case Crime No.603 of 2021 (IPC Ss. 147, 452, 427, 504, 436, 323, 506); scope of revisional jurisdiction per Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra (2012) 9 SCC 460; no interference warranted.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; no interference warranted and the impugned order rejecting the complaint was upheld. ¶24

Sakuntala Devi vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; no interference warranted and the impugned order rejecting the complaint was upheld.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 12.03.2024 of the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Auraiya rejecting the Revisionist's complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. was illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside and remanded for fresh decision. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The Court below rightly observed that, in the lack of any medical report in support of the allegation under the POCSO Act, the alleged offence appears doubtful; the complaint was considered to have been lodged out of enmity, falsely implicating Opposite Party No.2 in revenge for the case registered against the Revisionist's family members.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The statements of the victim and witness Guddi Devi, recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., contain contradictions; neither any medical examination report of the victim was produced nor any other witness said to have come on the spot was examined.

¶21

Key takeaways

Adopting the parameters delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra, (2012) 9 SCC 460, revisional jurisdiction focuses on failure of justice and legality/impropriety in the lower Court's procedure or appreciation of law, and not meticulous re-appreciation of evidence; its sole objective is to ensure the subordinate Court acted within the bounds of jurisdiction and according to law.ratio¶20
No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error was committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order; the Revisionist failed to make out a fit case justifying interference under this Court's revisional jurisdiction; no interference warranted.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 3158 of 2024 (Court No. 35), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, decided 04.11.2025 by Hon'ble Divesh Chandra Samant, J. — Sakuntala Devi v. State of U.P. & Anr. The Revisionist challenged the judgment/order dated 12.03.2024 of the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Auraiya, whereby her Complaint Case No. 771 of 2022 against Rajesh @ Jallad (P.S. Kotwali Auraiya) — originating as an application under S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that he entered her house and molested her daughter — was rejected under S. 203 Cr.P.C. after recording statements under Ss. 200/202 Cr.P.C. The trial court doubted the occurrence for want of any medical report and viewed the complaint as a counter-case to Case Crime No. 603 of 2021 (Ss. 147, 452, 427, 504, 436, 323, 506 IPC) registered against the Revisionist's family members. The High Court noted contradictions between the statements of the victim and witness Guddi Devi, endorsed the observation that absent a medical report the alleged offence under the POCSO Act appears doubtful, and, invoking the Supreme Court's parameters in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra, (2012) 9 SCC 460 (revisional focus on failure of justice and legality/propriety, not re-appreciation of evidence), found no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Revision dismissed; no interference warranted.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3158 of 2024

¶3

Sakuntala Devi

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Ansar Ahmad, Sandhya Chaturvedi : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 35

¶7

HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

¶8

List revised. No one is present on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite notice has been served personally.

¶9

Heard Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the Revisionist; learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.

¶10

The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 12.03.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Auraiya in Complaint Case No.771 of 2022, (Shakuntala Devi versus Rajesh @ Jallad), Police Station Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya by which the complaint case of the Revisionist has been rejected under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

¶11

The fact of the case in nutshell are that the Revisionist has filed an Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating therein that Opposite Party No.2-Rajesh @ Jallad forcibly entered her house with bad intention and caught hold of complainant's daughter (victim) and started molesting her by doing obscene acts. When the victim protected, the said Rajesh abused her, tore her kurta (clothes) and started kicking and punching her. On hearing the noises, Guddi Devi from the neighbourhood and other people from the vicinity came, on which the said Rajesh ran away saying that if anyone told anything, he would kill them all. The application was treated as complaint case by the learned Court below. After recording the statement of Revisionist under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the complaint case has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that this complaint case has been filed to create a

¶12

CRLR No. 3158 of 2024

¶13

¶14

counter case of the Case Crime No.603 of 2021, under Sections 147, 452, 427, 504, 436, 323, 506 IPC which was registered against the some family members of the Revisionist and no medical report has been submitted in support of the injuries alleged in the complaint, therefore, the alleged occurrence under the POCSO Act appears to be doubtful and the complaint case has been filed on wrong facts.

¶15

It has been argued by learned counsel for the Revisionist that due to dispute between Opposite Party No.2 and Revisionist, the enmity has arises, therefore, on account of that dispute the alleged incident took place when the Opposite Party No.2 had entered the house of the Revisionist and tried to outrage the modesty of the daughter of Revisionist. The fact stated in the complaint case are well established and supported by the victim and witnesses in their statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. for making out a prima-facie case to summon the accused to face trial, but, the learned Trail Court without considering the fact of the case and without applying the judicial mind rejected the complaint case of the Revisionist on the erroneous ground and passed the impugned order dated 12.03.2024. The learned Trial Court without going into the merits of the case rejected the complaint by passing the impugned order which is illegal and against the provisions of law. The impugned order dated 12.03.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and against the eye of law which is liable to be set aside and be remanded back to decide afresh.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA has defended the impugned order and argued that in a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it has been observed that while deciding the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has to look into the core of facts by analyzing the material on record keeping in mind about possibility of false implication in pursuance of any enmity between the parties. The learned Court below has rightly observed that the occurrence as alleged in the complaint appears doubtful and rightly rejected the complaint case.

¶17

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chandra, (2012) 9 SCC 460 has clearly delineated the parameters of revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that focus should be on failure of justice and legality impropriety in the lower Court's procedure or appreciation of law, and not a meticulous re-appreciation of evidence, which is the domain of trial of the appellate Courts. The revisional Court should not delve into an exhaustive

¶18

CRLR No. 3158 of 2024

¶19

¶20

weighing of the evidence to determine conviction or acquittal. The sole objective is to ensure that the subordinate Court has acted within the bounds of jurisdiction and according to law.

¶21

After the complaints being registered the statement of said victim and a witness Guddi Devi have been recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Neither any medical examination report of the victim has been produced nor any other witness who said to be came on the spot on shouting of the PW-2 Guddi were examined. A perusal of the statements of the said victim and witness Guddi Devi shows that there are some contradictions between their statements.

¶22

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Court below has passed the impugned order considering the facts that there is an enmity between the family of the Revisionist and the accused, and in pursuant to the enmity the Revisionist has falsely implicated the Opposite Party No.2 in the revenge of another case registered against the family members of the Revisionist. It has been rightly observed by the learned Court below that in the lack of any medical report in support of the allegation under POCSO Act the alleged offence appears to be doubtful.

¶23

In view of the above discussion, I find no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order and the Revisionist is not able to make out a fit case, so as to justify interference by this Court by granting any relief under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. No interference is warranted.

¶24

Revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶25

November 4, 2025 I.A.Siddiqui

¶26

(Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sakuntala Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakuntala Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Radha Krishna Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Shivani vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arif and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Rai vs State of Up and Another

Kalpana Singh and Another vs Simendra Singh

Smt Sarla Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others