DHARMVEER SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14608 of 2025

Dharmveer Singh
                                                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                           :    Onkar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)                           :    G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prateek Tyagi, learned
AGA for State- respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to set
aside the impugned judgment and orders dated 02.04.2025, passed by the
Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, in Criminal Revision No. 403 of 2024
(Dharmveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and another), as well as the judgment
and order dated 30.08.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar, in Complaint Case No.
3942/9/2022 (Dharmveer Singh vs. Brajpal Singh), relating to Police Station
Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar, whereby the complaint of the petitioner
has been rejected under Section 203 Cr.P.C., and the said order has been
affirmed by the learned revisional court. The petitioner has further prayed
that the matter be remitted back for fresh consideration of the complaint.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Complaint Case No.
3942 of 2022 (Dharmveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and another) was instituted
before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar.
It was stated in the complaint that the petitioner's daughter-in-law left her
matrimonial home along with her son after the death of the petitioner's son in
the year 2018, and that she left the matrimonial home in April, 2019. It was
further alleged that the daughter-in-law was in contact with the respondent,
who instigated her to lodge a false complaint against the petitioner. It was
further alleged that on 24.1.2022, at about 8:00 AM, when the petitioner was
proceeding towards the railway crossing, he questioned the respondent as to
why he and the petitioner's daughter-in-law were harassing him. Upon this,
                                                          A227 No. 14608 of 2025
                                 2


the respondent allegedly assaulted the petitioner with sticks, fists, and kicks,
and also demanded money by way of extortion. Learned counsel further
submitted that the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
and the statements of two witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were duly
recorded by the learned Trial Court; however, the complaint was dismissed
vide order dated 30.8.2024 on the ground that the dispute between the parties
appeared to be a property dispute, which had motivated the petitioner to
make false allegations against the respondent, who is a driver. It was
contended that the observations made by the learned Trial Court are in the
nature of a defence available to the accused persons, which could not have
been considered at the stage of deciding the complaint under Sections 203 or
204 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30.8.2024, the
petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.403 of 2024, which too was
dismissed vide order dated 2.4.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that both the courts below have committed gross illegality in
ignoring the allegations made in the complaint. It was argued that the
allegations were straightforward and have been disbelieved on untenable and
exaggerated grounds. Therefore, both the impugned orders are liable to be
set aside.

4. Learned AGA for the State-respondent submitted that the learned
Magistrate had examined the statements of all witnesses, including that of
the petitioner, before passing the order. The findings of the learned Trial
Court are based on conclusions drawn from the statements of the petitioner
and his witnesses. It was further submitted that the conclusion drawn by the
learned Trial Court that the petitioner himself had driven his daughter-in-law
out is borne out from his own statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
It was argued that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, being
based on proper appreciation of evidence, are not perverse. Even if another
view is possible on the basis of the same material, the same cannot be a
ground for interference either in criminal revision or under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Lastly, it was contended that the impugned orders do
not warrant any interference.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, including
the orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court.

6. Upon perusal of the complaint, it appears that the petitioner's daughter-
in-law had left her matrimonial home in April, 2019 after the death of the
                                                                                               A227 No. 14608 of 2025
                                                                     3


                                    petitioner's son in the year 2018. It is also admitted by the petitioner that his
                                    daughter-in-law, allegedly at the instigation of the respondent, had lodged a
                                    criminal complaint against him. The surrounding circumstances indicate that
                                    disputes had arisen between the petitioner and his daughter-in-law after the
                                    death of his son, which also resulted in criminal proceedings against the
                                    petitioner. In such circumstances, the possibility of false implication of the
                                    respondent by the petitioner cannot be ruled out. Therefore, this Court does
                                    not find any justification to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts
                                    below.

                                    7. Accordingly, the orders passed by the learned Trial as well as Revisional
                                    Court are upheld, and the present petition is dismissed.

                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Mukesh
                                                                                                (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad