Allahabad High Court
RAVIKANT AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKRAM D CHAUHAN
Holding
The trial court and revisional court did not commit any error; the petition under Article 227 is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, who had obtained a decree in a civil suit over a land dispute, were assaulted by the respondent after the respondent's appeal was allowed. The petitioners filed an FIR on 27 March 2023 and the respondent later lodged a criminal complaint under IPC sections 324, 504 and 506. The trial court issued a summons against the petitioners, which was challenged by a revision that was rejected. The petitioners sought, under Article 227, to set aside the summoning order and the pending criminal proceedings. The High Court held that the trial court and the revisional court had not erred, found no jurisdictional defect, and dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioners could apply for bail separately.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in issuing a summons in the criminal complaint under sections 324, 504 and 506 of the IPC.
- Whether the revisional court erred in rejecting the revision against the summoning order.
- Whether the petition under Article 227 is maintainable to set aside the trial court's order and the pending criminal proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 324, 504, 506
Subjects
- land dispute
- criminal assault
- IPC 324
- IPC 504
- IPC 506
- Article 227
- supervisory jurisdiction
- bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12222 of 2026
Ravikant And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shubham Srivastava, Sunil Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. The petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"a. to set a side the summoning order dated 26.07.2023 passed by
Learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate Saharanpur in complaint
case no. 791 of 2023 Tasveer Versus Ravikant and others, under section
324, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nagal District Saharanpur as
well as Judgment and order dated 20.12.2025 passed by Additional
District and Session Judge Room, No. 9 Saharanpur in criminal revision
no. 352 of 2024 Ravikant and others Versus State of U.P. and another.
b. to set-a-side the further proceeding of complaint case no. 791 of 2023
Tasveer Versus Ravikant and others, under section 324, 504 and 506
I.P.C., Police Station Nagal District Saharanpur, pending in the court of
Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial Magistrate Saharanpur."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a dispute with
regard to the land in question and a civil suit was decreed in favour of the
petitioners, however, the respondent no. 2 went in appeal and appeal was
allowed. Subsequent thereto, the respondent no. 2 approached the house
of the petitioners and have assaulted. The petitioners have lodged the first
information report on 27.3.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submits that thereafter after one month respondent no. 2 has filed
A227 No. 12222 of 2026
2
the complaint with the allegation that on 27.3.2023 the petitioners have
assaulted and as a result of the same injuries have been sustained and
injury report has been annexed. In the present case statement of the
complainant and witnesses have been recorded. The summoning order
was issued by the trial court against which a revision was filed and the
revision has been rejected by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further submits that the dispute is with regard to the land in
question and in order that the possession would be taken by the
petitioners, the respondent no. 2 have assaulted the petitioners and as a
result of the same the present false proceedings have been lodged.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that from the side of
the petitioners there are two injured.
4. It is to be seen that in the present case there is a cross version of the
incident while both the parties have sustained injuries as per learned
counsel for the petitioners. Once there are serious allegation with regard
to violation of law then the trial court and the revisional court committed
no error in passing the impugned order. There is no infraction of
jurisdiction by the trial court. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed
accordingly. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to apply for bail
before the court concerned in accordance with law.
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
September 8, 2026
VMA
Digitally signed by :-
VISHWA MOHAN ARORA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…