Allahabad High Court
VEER NARAYAN RATHAURversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence, and the revision is dismissed.
Summary
The revisionist, Veer Narayan Rathaur, filed a criminal revision challenging the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that dismissed his complaint alleging that his daughter‑in‑law and her relatives had retained jewellery and cash and had assaulted him. He claimed the trial court erred in rejecting his application under Section 226 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. The trial court found no documentary proof of ownership of the jewellery, no medical evidence of injury, and noted a pending case (Case Crime No. 21 of 2025) filed by the daughter‑in‑law on similar grounds, concluding that the ingredients of Section 316(1) were not satisfied. Relying on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that criminal process should not be used mechanically or as a tool of oppression, the court upheld the dismissal. The High Court affirmed that the trial court’s order was lawful and dismissed the revision.
Issues considered
- What is the adequacy of evidence to sustain a complaint under Section 316(1) of the B.N.S.S., 2023?
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the revisionist’s application under Section 226 of the B.N.S.S., 2023?
- Whether the pending criminal case filed by the daughter‑in‑law bars the present complaint.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 115(2), 190(1), 191(2), 191(3), 226, 316(2), 351(2), 352, 61
- Domestic Violence (Prevention) Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- criminal revision
- complaint under Section 316
- evidence requirement
- process abuse
- domestic dispute
- pending criminal case
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1431 of 2026
Veer Narayan Rathaur
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Arfi, Ram Jatan Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist is permitted to make necessary corrections in the
memo of revision.
3. The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated
28.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 04,
Agra, in Complaint Case No. 789 of 2025 (Veer Narayan Rathaur v. Jeetu and others
).
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that his application has been wrongly
rejected by the learned trial court under Section 226 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. The
revisionist had filed a complaint under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190(1), 115(2), 352,
61, 351(2), and 316(2) of the B.N.S. against opposite party nos. 2 to 8.
5. It has been submitted that his son, namely Vishal Rathaur, was married to
Divyanshi @ Ganga on 10.02.2023. He bore the marriage expenses from both sides.
After the marriage, Divyanshi @ Ganga told the wife of the revisionist that she
wanted to reside with her husband at his place of employment. However, she was
informed that it was not possible as he was generally living on a ship. Thereafter, she
stated that she wished to go to her parental home.
6. It has further been submitted that on 14.01.2024, the brother of Divyanshi @
Ganga, namely Jeetu, came to take her away, and thereafter the
revisionist/complainant sent her with her brother along with the entire jewellery and
cash. She returned on 18.02.2024, but the entire jewellery and cash were left at her
parental home. Thereafter, on 15.10.2024 and 18.12.2024, when enquiries were made
regarding the jewellery and cash, the accused persons allegedly hurled abuses,
extended threats, assaulted them, and stated that they had deliberately retained all the
jewellery and cash and would neither return the same nor send Divyanshi @ Ganga
back.
CRLR No. 1431 of 2026
2
7. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the said criminal complaint has been filed as a
counterblast, as Case Crime No. 21 of 2025 has already been registered under Sections
61(2), 115(2), and 85 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act, which is
pending. It has been submitted that the present complaint has been filed to save
themselves from the earlier case. There is neither any truth in the allegations nor any
supporting medical evidence of injuries. Therefore, the present criminal revision is
liable to be dismissed.
8. The learned trial court has passed a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order. It has
been observed that although the complainant alleged that the jewellery had been
retained by his daughter-in-law, Divyanshi @ Ganga, and her family members, no
documentary evidence regarding ownership of the said jewellery has been filed.
Hence, the ingredients of Section 316(1) of the B.N.S. are not fulfilled. A report was
also received from the concerned police station indicating that the daughter-in-law of
the complainant had already lodged a criminal case under Sections 61(2), 115(2), and
85 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act at the same police station,
registered as Case Crime No. 21 of 2025. There is neither any medical evidence nor
any documentary proof of ownership of the jewellery, nor any medical report
supporting the alleged incident.
9. The learned trial court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. and others v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998)
5 SCC 749, wherein it was held that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a
serious matter and that criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It
is not sufficient for the complainant merely to produce two witnesses to support the
allegations to initiate criminal proceedings. The learned trial court has also relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others v.
Surendra Prasad Sinha, (1993) 1 SCC 499, wherein it was held that issuance of
process should not be mechanical and should not be made an instrument of oppression
or needless harassment.
10. In view of the facts, circumstances, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the complaint.
11. There is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order.
12. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
February 25, 2026
K.K. Maurya
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…