Allahabad High Court
Rajeev And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 6 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:104771 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3217 of 2025 Rajeev And Another .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Yogesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Alka Srivastava, G.A. Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Shri Yogesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Amrit Raj, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2025, passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Baghpat in Criminal Revision No.71 of 2024 (Rajeev and Another vs. State of UP and others), as well as order dated 20.1.2024, passed by learned CJM, Baghpat, in Complaint Case No.767 of 2022, (New Case No.676 of 2024) (Rajveer vs. Rahul and others), Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an First Information Report in Case Crime No. 1228 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 307, 354 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat, was lodged against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that Prachi, daughter of respondent No.2 Rajveer Singh, was married with Rahul on 14.12.2014 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. He further submitted that a final report was submitted after conclusion of investigation. Again, an order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, subsequent to which investigation was conducted. Again, a final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 moved a protest petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat and the petitioners were summoned under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 20.01.2024. Learned counsel submitted that allegations have been made against all the family members including the husband of victim Prachi. It was found by the Investigating Officer during investigation that the mobile location of all the accused persons was found in Meerut on the date of the alleged incident. However, the claim of the prosecution is that the alleged incident occurred on 26.12.2021 at Baghpat. He submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate has only relied upon the statements of the victim and her father recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but has ignored the other evidences collected during investigation. It was further submitted that similar allegations were made against the sister-in-law of the victim, however, she has not been summoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 20.01.2024. He submitted that against the order dated 20.01.2024, a Criminal Revision No. 71 of 2024 was preferred. The said criminal revision was also dismissed on 27.01.2025 by upholding the order dated 20.01.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that cogent evidence pertaining to the location of the petitioners was collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation on the basis of their mobile phones. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate demonstrates that the said evidence was totally ignored and the same was also not considered in Criminal Revision No. 71 of 2024. He submitted that the impugned orders are perverse and liable to be set aside.
5. Sri Amrit Raj, learned A.G.A., submitted that the trial court has relied upon the statements of the victim and informant, who have corroborated the prosecution story. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 20.01.2024 passed by the learned C.J.M., Baghpat, it is apparent that the learned C.J.M. has primarily focused upon the statements of the victim and informant and has not discussed the other evidences collected by the Investigating Officer. If evidences in the case diary are of both nature, one supporting the prosecution and the other saving the accused persons, then it is the duty of the Magistrate to derive a conclusion after conjoint reading of both the evidences. In the present case, where cogent evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer pertaining to the location of the petitioners at the time of the incident, the said fact should have been considered by the concerned court. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has mainly relied upon the statements of the victim and informant and has not considered any other evidence of the case diary.
7. In the given circumstances, the impugned order dated 20.01.2024 passed by the learned C.J.M., Baghpat as well as the order dated 27.01.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No. 71 of 2024, are set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order on the final report submitted in Case Crime No. 1228 of 2021, in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.) May 6, 2026 KJ