Smt. Phoolwati Saini vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist/complainant against the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act–Anany), Rampur, on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed in Special Case No. 61 of 2025 (State versus Vikas Saini), arising out of Case Crime No. 274 of 2024, under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur.

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that there is no mention of the date of occurrence of the offence. The F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No. 274 of 2024 under Sections 376, 506, 120-B, and 328 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, at Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur. The revisionist/complainant, Smt. Phoolwati Saini, lodged the F.I.R. against the named accused persons, namely, Vikas Saini, Jankidas Saini, Smt. Champa Devi, Ajay Saini, Reena, Naveen Saini, and Mohini Saini.

¶13

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the daughter of the complainant, namely, Kranti Saini (victim), aged about 17 years, had passed her Intermediate Examination in the year 2024. A former student of her school, Vikas Saini, started talking to the victim and used to visit her home. It is further alleged that Vikas Saini called the victim from mobile number 9457040957 on 22.04.2024 to Hotel Delux, Radha Road, Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur, where he committed rape upon her on the false assurance of marriage and also threatened her.

¶14

Thereafter, the victim became depressed and, upon enquiry, disclosed to her mother on 13.05.2024 that the accused Vikas Saini had committed rape upon her on the assurance of marriage and was now threatening her. On 14.05.2024, on her complaint, she was referred to Police Station Mahila, Rampur, where the accused Vikas Saini was arrested. It is further alleged that due to collusion with the father of Vikas Saini

¶15

CRLR No. 8294 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

(Jankidas Saini), mother (Champa Devi), brother (Ajay Saini), bhabhi (Reena), another brother (Naveen Saini), and sister (Mohini Saini), the victim was falsely assured of a compromise, and after photographs were taken on 14.05.2024 at about 10:00 P.M. at Shiv Mandir, Gangapur, depicting a marriage ceremony, the victim was taken to their house.

¶18

Thereafter, Vikas Saini took her to Moradabad and committed rape over the following six days. During that period, Vikas Saini and his bhabhi (sister-in-law) administered intoxicating tablets to the victim by mixing them with milk, causing her to lose consciousness. When the victim regained consciousness, she informed her father about the incident on May 20, 2024. Subsequently, the victim underwent medical treatment; once her condition improved, an F.I.R. was lodged.

¶19

After a detailed investigation, a charge sheet was filed. During the trial, the statements of P.W.-1 (Smt. Phoolwati) and P.W.-2 (the victim) were recorded before the trial court. Subsequently, an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was filed, which was rejected by the impugned order dated November 13, 2025.

¶20

There are no specific allegations against opposite party nos. 2 to 7 in the F.I.R., which was lodged after a significant delay. Furthermore, during the investigation, no involvement of opposite party nos. 2 to 7 was found, and they were exonerated. While there is consistency in the evidence provided in the complaint and before the court. It is Vikas Saini who has committed the rape with the victim. The allegation made by Smt. Phoolwati Saini/revisionist/complainant against the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 are general in nature.

¶21

The learned trial court passed a detailed order concluding that no complicity was found regarding opposite party nos. 2 to 7. Although they are family members of the accused, Vikas Saini, the entire family cannot be prosecuted for an offence allegedly committed by him alone.

¶22

There is neither any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 13.11.2025.

¶23

The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly.

¶24

January 6, 2026 K.K. Maurya

¶25

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Phoolwati Saini v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Phoolwati Saini v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surya Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanjay Tiwari vs State of Up and Another

Yogesh Kumar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Kumar Kesharwani and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another