Allahabad High Court
SMT. MADHUMALAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKRAM D CHAUHAN
Holding
The High Court held that the revisional court did not commit any error and dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Madhumala, filed a petition under Article 227 challenging two orders: one of the Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Court, and another of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, which refused to summon her father-in-law and mother-in-law (respondents 3 and 4) in a criminal complaint. The petitioner argued that the complaint, filed under sections 85 and 115(2) of the B.N.S. and sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act, contained vague and general allegations against the in‑laws and lacked a specific date of offence. The High Court examined the complaint and found it indeed vague, with no specific charge against respondents 3 and 4, and concluded that the revisional court correctly refused to summon them. Consequently, the Court held that no error was made by the revisional court and dismissed the petition. The orders of the lower courts were upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the revisional court erred in refusing to summon respondents 3 and 4 despite the complaint filed under sections 85, 115(2) of the B.N.S. and sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
- Whether the petition under Article 227 should set aside the impugned orders of the Additional Sessions Judge and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Article 227
- supervisory jurisdiction
- revision
- summons
- vague complaint
- maternity dispute
- B.N.S.
- D.P. Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12618 of 2026
Smt. Madhumala
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Pravesh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
2. The petition is filed with the following prayer:
"(i) Call for the record and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated
27.05.2026 (Annexure no.1) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO
Court No. 03, Firozabad in Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2026 (Smt. Madhumala Vs.
Vikas Kumar @ Vikas Yadav and others) as well as order dated 13.02.2026
(Annexure no.2), so far as refusal of summons of the respondent no.3 & 4, the father-
in-law & mother-in-law respectively, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Shikohabad, Firozabad in complaint case no. 1905 of 2025 (Smt. Madhumala Vs.
Vikas Kumar @ Vikas Yadav and others) under section 85, 115(2) of B.N.S. and 3/4
D.P. Act, P.S. Sirsaganj, District-Firozabad.
(ii) Summon the accused respondent no. 3 & 4 in complaint case no. 1905 of 2025
(Smt. Madhumala Vs. Vikas Kumar @ Vikas Yadav and others) under section 85,
115(2) of B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sirsaganj, District-Firozabad."
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that opposite party
nos.3 and 4 are father-in-law and mother-in-law. The complaint was filed
by applicant, who is wife in which summons have been issued against
opposite party no.2/husband and no summons have been issued against
opposite party nos.3 and 4.
4. Perusal of statement of complainant under Section 223 BNSS would go
to show that vague and general allegations have been made in the
A227 No. 12618 of 2026
2
statement against opposite party nos.3 and 4.
5. It seems that there is matrimonial dispute. The date of offence has not
been stated in the statement. The statement is wholly vague in nature.
Revisional court has rejected the revision on the ground that there is no
specific allegation against opposite party nos.3 and 4.
6. This Court is of the view that the revisional has committed no error in
passing the impugned order and as such, the petition is dismissed.
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
September 14, 2026
D. Tamang
Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA TAMANG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…