Allahabad High Court
HARENDRA @ HARENDRA KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The charge‑framing order is not illegal or irregular and the revision is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, Harendra Kumar and another, filed a criminal revision challenging the order dated 24-11-2025 that framed charges against them under IPC sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They contended that the charges were improper because they had been living separately since 2016 and had no role in the alleged offences. The court held that the question of fact regarding their involvement is for the trial court and that the charge‑framing order was procedurally valid. No illegality or irregularity was found in the impugned order. Consequently, the revision was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order framing charges under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act is illegal or irregular.
- Whether the revision petition is maintainable in view of the factual nature of the dispute.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- criminal revision
- charge framing
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- procedural law
- fact finding
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1453 of 2026
Harendra @ Harendra Kumar And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Prasoon Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the
State.
2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists
against the impugned order dated 24.11.2025, passed by the learned Civil
Judge ( J.D.)/F.T.C.(Crime against Women)/Judicial Magistrate, Mathura
in Warrant Summon Case No. 825 of 2021 (State Vs. Keshav Dushad @
Manoj Kumar and others), whereby charges have been framed against the
revisionists, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the charges are
already framed on 24.11.2025 against the revisionist by the learned trial
court under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that
marriage took place in the year 2014. The revisionists have purchased
land in the year 2016 and since then they are residing separately. They are
having no role in the said offence.
4. This is a question of fact, which could be decided by the learned trial
court at the appropriate stage. The charges are already framed. The
question of fact could not be decided at this stage.
5. Learned AGA has submitted that the charges are already framed and
there is neither illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order framing
charge dated 24.11.2025.
CRLR No. 1453 of 2026
2
6. In view of all consideration of facts, reasons and circumstances of the
case, this Court find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.
The revision is, thus liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed.
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
February 25, 2026
sfa/
Digitally signed by :-
SYED FAHEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…