- (1.) This criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, District- Mathura in Case No. 1117 of 2012 (State vs. Durga and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 417 of 2011, under Sections 498, 504, 506, 147, 120-B and 342 I.P.C., Police Station- Highway, District- Mathura, whereby the application under Section 323 Cr.P.C. moved by the opposite party no.2 has been allowed and revisionists have been summoned under Sections 376, 120-B, 504, 506, 342 I.P.C. to face the trial.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in Prem Das vs. State of U.P. & another decided on 21 September, 2012 in Criminal Revision No. 2066 of 2010.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionists has argued as follows:- (i). The alleged victim PW-2, prosecutrix Smt. XYZ w/o Surya Dev has never stated about the commission of rape upon her prior to her deposition before the Magistrate on date 12.4.2013 in the trial. (ii). The prosecutrix, Smt. XYZ has never stated about the commission of rape upon her in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer. (iii). This alleged incident of commission of rape upon Smt. XYZ by the accused persons has never been disclosed even by her husband in his application dated 5th May, 2011 preferred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (iv). The prosecutrix, Smt. XYZ has abruptly levelled charges of commission of rape upon her by the accused persons without mentioning the date, time and place in her deposition before the learned Magistrate at the very first time. (v). Learned Magistrate has erroneously analysed the definition of the offence under Section 498 I.P.C.;