Allahabad High Court

RAJEEV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: SANDEEP CHAUDHARY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Session Judge are set aside as they ignored material evidence, and a fresh order is to be passed.

Summary

The petitioners challenged orders dated 20‑01‑2024 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, and 27‑01‑2025 by the Additional Session Judge, on the ground that the lower courts relied solely on the victim's and informant's statements while ignoring material evidence, notably mobile‑phone location data showing the accused were in Meerut at the time of the alleged incident. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 498‑A, 323, 506, 307, 354 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court examined whether the lower courts erred in disregarding the investigative evidence and whether the orders were perverse. It held that the magistrate failed to consider the entire case diary and that the revision court merely affirmed the same error. Consequently, the High Court set aside both orders and directed the magistrate to pass a fresh order based on the final report, allowing the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in relying only on victim and informant statements while ignoring other material evidence such as mobile‑location data.
Whether the order of the Additional Session Judge in the criminal revision is perverse and liable to be set aside under Article 227.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash the lower courts' orders and direct a fresh proceeding.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 161, 190(1)(b)
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 354, 498-A, 506

Subjects

Article 227
criminal revision
dowry death
evidence exclusion
mobile location evidence
perverse order
fresh order

Judgment

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
A227 No. 3217 of 2025
2

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
A227 No. 3217 of 2025
3

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

Digitally signed by :-
KAMARJAHAN ANSARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…