Allahabad High Court
Garima vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:121576 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10587 of 2025 Garima .....Petitioner(s) Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Prakash Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Saroj Kumar Tiwari Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State respondent.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a suitable order or direction setting aside the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh, in Criminal Revision No. 211 of 2025 (Garima Versus State of U.P. and Another), as well as the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Aligarh, in Complaint Case No. 827 of 2021 (Lakhan Tomar Versus Garima), under Sections 292 and 503 IPC and Sections 66 and 66-E of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Sasani Gate, District Aligarh. A further prayer has been made directing that the petitioner be discharged from all charges under Section 254(2) CrPC in Complaint Case No. 827 of 2021 (Lakhan Tomar Versus Garima), under Sections 292 and 503 IPC and Sections 66 and 66-E of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Sasani Gate, District Aligarh.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was summoned in Complaint Case No. 827 of 2021 (Lakhan Tomar Versus Garima) to face trial under Sections 292 and 503 IPC and Sections 66 and 66-E of the Information Technology Act. It is submitted that false allegations of blackmailing the respondent/complainant by sending obscene WhatsApp messages have been levelled against the petitioner. It is further submitted that no witnesses were produced by the complainant under Section 202 CrPC during the proceedings. It is argued that the WhatsApp messages and related electronic evidence relied upon by the complainant, as well as by the trial court, are doubtful in nature. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner moved a discharge application under Section 249 CrPC before the learned trial court after the statement under Section 245 CrPC had been recorded. In the said application, it was specifically contended that the allegations against the petitioner were baseless and unsupported by reliable evidence, and that the alleged WhatsApp chats and mobile phone were themselves doubtful, particularly in view of the complainant's own admission that the mobile phone and the alleged messages were not in his possession. It is further submitted that the discharge application was rejected without proper consideration of the fact that the statements on record, in the absence of substantial supporting evidence, do not constitute any offence against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Aligarh, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 211 of 2025 (Garima Versus State of U.P. and Another). However, the said criminal revision was also dismissed without considering the illegality committed by the learned trial court. It is thus submitted that the order dated 08.07.2025 passed in the criminal revision, as well as the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the trial court, are unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondent submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are duly corroborated by documentary evidence and that a prima facie case is clearly made out. It is contended that the dismissal of the discharge application by both the courts below does not suffer from any infirmity.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court.
6. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that no witnesses were produced by the respondent-complainant under Section 202 CrPC, thereby weakening the prosecution case. It has been argued that the failure to produce any witness under Section 202 CrPC is sufficient to demonstrate that the allegations are false and fabricated. The said contention lacks merit. It is well settled that a statement recorded under Section 202 CrPC may itself be sufficient to proceed against the accused persons, provided that the allegations contained therein disclose a prima facie case. Production of witnesses under Section 202 CrPC is not mandatory before passing an order under Section 204 CrPC. Apart from the above, this Court is of the view that the allegations as well as the supporting evidence have been duly considered by the courts below. The findings recorded on the basis of the available evidence do not warrant any interference by this Court.
7. Accordingly, the present petition lacks merit and is, therefore, dismissed.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.) May 26, 2026 Mukesh