Preeti Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 389 of 2025

¶3

Revisionist :- Preeti Yadav

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Atul Verma,Akhilendra Pratap Singh,Himanshu Tiwari,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA on behalf of the State-respondent.

¶8

By means of the present criminal revision under Section 438/442 of B.N.S.S., the revisionist has assailed the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow thereby rejecting the application moved by the revisionist under Section 250 B.N.S.S. wherein the application for discharge preferred by the revisionist has been rejected.

¶9

It has been submitted that the opposite party no.2 had filed an FIR alleging that she had got acquainted with one Aman Yadav (Devar of the revisionist) through social media on 29.04.2021 and also developed physical relationship and both of them visited hotel at Vinamra Khand. It is also alleged that the said Aman Yadav had made a promise of marriage to the complainant and had also taken huge amount of money from the complainant. It has been further stated that the complainant Aman Yadav got married in a Hotel. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that Aman Yadav has been previously married but assured the complainant that very soon he will divorce his first wife. Subsequently, their relationship had become sharp and it is alleged that a number of occasion

¶10

Aman Yadav had tried to kill the complainant. There is no dispute that the revisionist was neither named in the first information report nor is there any allegation in the same. During investigation also no allegation was made against the revisionist. Even in the statement under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. there was no mention of the name of the revisionist as an accused but is only during statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that a passing reference was made with regard to the revisionist that she has been given given eight mobile phones to the revisionist to the family members of the Aman Yadav. It is on the basis of the aforesaid material, the revisionist had preferred an application for discharge stating that even in the version of the complainant is sought to be correct, no allegation is made out against the revisionist so as to include him in the list of accused during the trial and proceeded against him. The trial court has rejected the application by order dated 18.02.2025 which has been impugned in the present revision. The trial has while considering the case of the revisionist has recorded a fact that the revisionist has obtained a mobile phone specifically from the complainant and ensured that she will have her devar married to the complainant. When she could not get the devar married to the complainant, the complainant asked the revisionist to return the mobile phone which has been refused and accordingly, the trial court is of the view that a case under Section 406 of the IPC is made out against the revisionist and consequently, the rejected the application of discharge under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

¶11

Counsel for the revisionist has vehemently submitted that it is settled law that Sections 406 and 420 cannot be invoked simultaneously against the accused. He submits that this aspect of the matter has been duly considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and others

¶12

versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2024) 10 Supreme Court Cases 690. He further submits that the perusal of the statement made by the complainant during investigation would clearly indicate that the aspect which has been recorded by the trial court was never made by the complainant during investigation and consequently, the finding recorded are perverse and require interference.

¶13

We have perused the record as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court, prima facie a case for interference is made out. The matter requires consideration.

¶14