RITA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
             MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14380 of 2025

Rita Devi
                                                                  .....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                               .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                      :    Sunil Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s)                      :    G.A.

Court No. - 89
                       HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Kumar Singh,
learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed with the following main prayer :-

"(i) set aside the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 (Annexure No.1 to the misc.
petition) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Jaunpur in
Criminal Revision No.409 of 2024 (Rita Devi Vs. State of U.P. & others) as well as
impugned order dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure No.2 to the misc. petition) passed by
learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), New Court-10/Judicial Magistrate,
Jaunpur in Case No.207 of 2019 (Rita Vs. Ram Ashish & others)."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that private respondents
were making rival claims upon an abadi land situated in village of the
petitioner. Hence, a Panchayat was called on 23.6.2019 and it was settled
in the said Panchayat that the disputed abadi land should remain in
possession of the petitioner. After the dispute was resolved, the
respondents arrived at the house of the petitioner and started assailing the
petitioner and her family members. Petitioner and her family members
were severely assaulted by the respondents who inflicted injuries by kicks
and punches. Even petitioner and her other female members were also
disrobed by the respondents.

4. In order to register her complaint against the respondents, the petitioner
moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned
                                                       A227 No. 14380 of 2025
                               2


court, which was converted into Complaint Case No.207 of 2019 (Rita
Vs. Ram Ashish & others). Statement of complainant her witnesses were
recorded before the court wherein all the witnesses consistently
corroborated the allegations. However, her complaint was dismissed by
the trial court on 27.8.2024 by observing that allegations appear to be
exaggerated because no injury report to substantiate the allegation of
severe assault by respondents was submitted by petitioner. Learned
counsel submitted that observation of the trial court is per se illegal
because the allegations of the petitioner from the very beginning was that
petitioner and her family members were assaulted by kicks and punches.
Hence, there was no justification to seek injury report in case where the
petitioner and her family members were assaulted by empty handed
respondents.

5. It was submitted that aggrieved by the said order dated 27.8.2024, the
petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.409 of 2024 (Rita Devi Vs.
State of U.P. & others), which too was dismissed by the revisional court
on 19.7.2025 without properly appreciated that the evidences recorded by
the trial court are per se perverse and illegal. Learned counsel submitted
that the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional
court are liable to be set aside.

6. Learned AGA submitted that allegations, prima facie, seem to be
exaggerated as the petitioner herself has admitted that an FIR was lodged
by the respondents against the petitioner pertaining to the identical
incident which demonstrates that the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. was moved as a counter-blast. He further submitted that despite
allegation of severe assault, no injury report was produced by the
petitioner during the complaint proceedings.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders
of both courts.

8. It is apparent that the trial court has properly discussed the evidence
recorded before it during the proceeding and came to the conclusion only
after evaluating and appreciating the evidences recorded under Sections
200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The finding recorded by the trial court cannot be
held to be illegal and perverse, particularly when it has adopted one of the
                                                                                        A227 No. 14380 of 2025
                                                                   3


                                    two possible views arising from the record.

                                    9. In the given circumstances, both impugned orders passed by the trial
                                    court as well as the revisional court are upheld.

                                    10. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.


                                                                                        (Anil Kumar-X,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    SK




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad