Allahabad High Court

ANANDversusState of U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA

Holding

The criminal revision is dismissed as it lacks merit and the magistrate's order rejecting the Section 156(3) application is upheld.

Summary

Anand filed a criminal revision under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging that his deceased sister had been kidnapped and forced into marriage, and that the opposite parties had threatened his life. The Judicial Magistrate rejected the application, directing a preliminary police inquiry, and later dismissed the revision on the ground that the facts presented were inaccurate, noting that the sister had died by asphyxia due to hanging and was married to a different person. Opposite parties submitted police and post‑mortem reports supporting their version, and the State’s Additional Government Advocate opposed the revision. No counsel appeared on behalf of the revisionist despite being listed, and the High Court found the submissions of the opposite parties to be borne out by the record. Consequently, the Court held that the revision lacked merit and dismissed it.

Issues considered

Whether the Judicial Magistrate erred in rejecting the application under Section 156(3) CrPC without proper evaluation of evidence.
Whether the facts alleged by the revisionist are substantiated by the record.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the criminal revision in the present circumstances.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3)

Subjects

Criminal Revision
Section 156(3) CrPC
Preliminary Inquiry
Magistrate's Discretion
Dismissal
Evidence Evaluation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2117 of 2024

Anand
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sanjeev Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Praveen Kumar Shukla,
Premshankar Shukla

Court No. - 45
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Case called out in revised list. No one appears on behalf of revisionist
to press this revision even though the name of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar,
Advocate has duly published in the cause list as counsel for revisionist.

2. Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4, Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned AGA appearing
on behalf of State-opposite party no. 1 and perused the record.

3. Revisionist Anand has approached this Court by means of present
Criminal Revision assailing the impugned order dated 22.02.2024 passed
by Judicial Magistrate, Amroha (hereinafter referred to as trial court) in
Misc. Case No. 05/2024 (Anand Vs. Pramod and others) CNR No.
UPJB040001012024, P.S. Saidnagli, District Amroha wherein the
Judicial Magistrate rejected the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the
revisionist.

4. Feeling aggrieved from that order the present Criminal Revision has
been filed on account that the impugned order has been passed without
weighing of evidence on record. The Judicial Magistrate has not
considered the aspect of the case and illegally directed to police authority
to conduct the preliminary inquiry. The impugned order is erroneous, full
of illegality and infirmities, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed by
this Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction.
CRLR No. 2117 of 2024
2

5. For just disposal of the case, the necessary facts are that the
revisionist/applicant had filed an Application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before
the Jurisdictional Magistrate stating therein that his sister (deceased) had
been kidnapped by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and when a complaint in
this regard lodged by revisionist/applicant, the opposite party no. 3
extended threats to life. According to the version of the
applicant/revisionist, opposite party no. 2 namely Pramod S/o Kishore
R/o Village Kandowa, Police Station Saidnagali, District Amroha
intended to forcibly marry the applicant's sister. Due to fear of Pramod,
the applicant solemnized the marriage of his sister Sundara on 10.12.2023
to Jitendra, R/o Mohalla Kutte Ki Qabra Wala, Town and Police Station
Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar.

6. After receiving the aforesaid application, the Jurisdictional Magistrate
directed the local police to conduct a preliminary enquiry. Pursuant
thereto, the police submitted its report which reveals that prior to filing
the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and after the death of the
deceased, the revisionist had approached the concerned police station and
submitted an application stating therein that his sister had been married to
Rakesh S/o Bal Singh, R/o Dewas Village Sadar, Police Station
Mahendragarh, Haryana. It was further stated in the said application that
the deceased was mentally disturbed and on account thereof, had
committed suicide.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4
submitted that on the basis of aforesaid information, the inquest
proceeding of the deceased were conducted and thereafter the dead body
was sent for post-mortem wherein the cause of death was detected
asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. It is further submitted that a
death certificate of the deceased was also issued wherein the name of the
husband of the deceased has been mentioned as Mr. Rakesh meaning
thereby the present application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the
revisionist before the Jurisdictional Magistrate mentioning the wrong
facts. It is further contended that the Judicial Magistrate, after considering
each and every aspect of the matter and taking note of the aforesaid
abnormalities rightly disbelieved the version presented by the revisionist
and rejected the same. It is thus contended that the impugned order suffers
CRLR No. 2117 of 2024
3

from no illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court.

8. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State-opposite party no. 1
vehemently opposed the criminal revision.

9. Having heard the learned AGA as well as the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 learned AGA and
upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the submissions urged by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 are
clearly born out from the record and no one has appeared on behalf of
revisionist to confront the aforesaid submissions.

10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present criminal
revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed, accordingly
dismissed.

(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
May 7, 2026
Arti

Digitally signed by :-
ARTI SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…