DHEERAJ AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1078 of 2026

Dheeraj And 3 Others
                                                             .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)            :   Shujauddin, Ziauddin Farooqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :   G.A.

Court No. - 87
                     HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order
dated 22.12.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, in
Case Crime No. 600 of 2017, under Sections 302 and 120B I.P.C., Police
Station Muhammadabad, District Mau.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that initially opposite party
no. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged on 19.12.2017 against
the revisionists. The statement of the first informant, namely Tetri Devi, was
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she supported the contents of
the F.I.R. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 11.04.2017. It
was submitted that there was no external injury on the body of the deceased.
The statements of witnesses, namely Mishri Chauhan, Suban Chauhan,
Santosh Chauhan, Abubakar Khair, Nanahi Chauhan, Ashok Chauhan,
Shivvachan, Rizwan, and others, were recorded, and affidavits were also
filed. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) recorded the re-statement (Majid
Bayan) of the first informant, Tetri Devi, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After
investigation, a final report was submitted on 26.03.2018. The first
informant filed a protest petition against the final report before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Mau, on 05.06.2025.

4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order dated 22.08.2025
accepting the protest petition. Thereafter, the impugned order dated
                                                          CRLR No. 1078 of 2026
                                2


22.12.2025 was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.
Hence, the present criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submitted that the F.I.R. was
lodged after an approximate delay of seven months. As per the F.I.R., the
incident took place on 10.04.2017, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on
19.12.2017 under Sections 302 and 120B I.P.C. On the complaint of Smt.
Tetri Devi, wife of Vijay Chauhan (the deceased), the F.I.R. was lodged
against the accused persons, namely Dhiraj, Chakauti, Kanhaiya, Ramrat,
Tunmun, Mansingh, and Shanichari.

6. As per the contents of the F.I.R., all the accused persons are alleged to be
mischievous in nature. The informant has only one daughter, aged about 19
years, and her priority was the marriage of her daughter. The accused
persons allegedly used to take the husband of the informant to their house
and provide him with meat and liquor in order to grab the informant's
property. Thereafter, they allegedly controlled her husband and influenced
his actions. The husband of the complainant opposed the allegedly fabricated
will of his father. It is alleged that the accused persons manipulated matters
at the Tehsil.

7. On the night of 10/11.04.2017, all the aforesaid accused persons allegedly
conspired to grab the property and, in order to keep the matter secret,
conspired to kill the husband of the informant by administering poison. He
died in the morning at about 4:00 a.m. in the hospital. The post-mortem was
conducted, and the immediate cause of death was suspected poisoning; the
viscera were preserved for chemical analysis.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that, as per the doctor's
statement, there was no external ante-mortem injury on the body of the
deceased. The cause of death was suspected poisoning, and the viscera were
preserved for chemical analysis. As per the chemical analysis, aluminium
phosphide poison was found in parts of the viscera (1–5) and material (7), as
per the FSL report. Reliance was placed on CD No. 18 and SCD-17, wherein
it was noted that the cause of death of Vijay Chauhan was due to self-
consumption of a poisonous substance.

9. Learned counsel further submitted that, during the additional statement of
the complainant (question and answer form), certain facts emerged, on the
basis of which the final report was submitted. The complainant filed
                                                           CRLR No. 1078 of 2026
                                 3


objections to the final report and consistently accused the accused persons.
Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed further
investigation and disposed of the protest petition and the final report
accordingly.

10. The learned trial court considered the further investigation report filed in
the form of a final report, which was rejected, and the revisionists/accused
persons, namely Dhiraj, Chakauti, Tunmun, and Shanichari, were summoned
under Sections 302 and 120B I.P.C. The learned trial court held that the
complainant had stated that her co-villager Subedar had given shelter, but
the Investigating Officer had not recorded the statement of Subedar. The I.O.
also did not record any specific statement of the daughter of the
complainant, namely Sarita. The alleged witnesses, namely, Mishri
Chauhan, Suban Chauhan, Santosh Chauhan, Abubakar Khair, Nanahi
Chauhan, Ashok Chauhan, Shivvachan, and Rizwan had submitted
affidavits. The I.O. relied upon those affidavits and submitted the final
report. However, as per the post-mortem report, the deceased Vijay Chauhan
died due to aluminium phosphide poisoning, which is supported by the FSL
report.

11. The facts of the case indicate that the deceased and his two brothers,
Tunmun and Dhiraj, were siblings. The father of the deceased had executed
a will in the year 2001 bequeathing his movable and immovable property in
favour of Chakauti, wife of Dhiraj, and Shanichari, wife of Tunmun. The
deceased Vijay Chauhan consistently opposed the said will. A case was filed
before the competent civil court by the wife of the deceased.

12. On the date of the incident, the accused persons allegedly called the
deceased to their home, provided him with food and beverages, kept him
there overnight, and took him to the hospital at about 4:00 a.m. without
informing the complainant, which creates serious doubt. It is also evident
that poison was found in the body of the deceased, as confirmed by the FSL
report. There are allegations that the accused persons had grabbed the land
of the deceased. The investigation appears to have been concluded primarily
on the basis of affidavits of the alleged witnesses, all of whom gave similar
statements. The death of the deceased was unnatural, and there are consistent
allegations against the accused/revisionists.

13. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the
                                                                                               CRLR No. 1078 of 2026
                                                                     4


                                    summoning order was passed against the revisionists/accused persons.

                                    14. There is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order.

                                    15. The criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

                                    February 26, 2026
                                    K.K. Maurya
                                                                                                (Abdul Shahid,J.)




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