Allahabad High Court
SEEMA GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 9 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting the application under Section 173(4) Cr.P.C. is lawful and the criminal revision is dismissed.
Summary
Seema Gupta filed a criminal revision under Section 173(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, which rejected her application to add further accused in a family property dispute that resulted in injuries. The incident on 22‑02‑2025 led to two FIRs (Crimes No. 49 and 50 of 2025) against the original accused. The revisionist argued that the trial court erred in refusing to consider additional accused, while the respondents contended the order was proper. The High Court examined the record, noting that an FIR had already been filed and that any further accused could be sought through a fresh application under the appropriate provisions. Finding no illegality or irregularity in the magistrate’s order, the Court dismissed the revision as meritless.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the application under Section 173(4) Cr.P.C. is illegal or irregular.
- Whether a revision is the proper remedy to seek addition of further accused in the present case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173(4)
Subjects
- criminal revision
- Section 173(4) Cr.PC
- FIR
- property dispute
- procedural law
- addition of accused
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4426 of 2025
Seema Gupta
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 9 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : P.K. Singh, Shashi Kant Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, G.A.,
Mashhood Abbas
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel appearing for
opposite party nos. 2 to 10, and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned
order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Azamgarh, in Application No. 932 of 2025 (Seema Gupta vs. Guddu),
under Section 173(4) Cr.P.C., Police Station Bardah, District Azamgarh,
whereby the said application was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist
had filed an application under Section 173(4) Cr.P.C., which has been
rejected by the learned trial court vide the impugned order dated
24.06.2025. He has further submitted that the incident occurred on
22.02.2025 and the injured sustained several injuries. It is also submitted
that opposite party nos. 8, 9, and 10 are government officials, namely the
S.H.O., Sub-Inspector, and Constable, respectively, of Police Station
Bardah, District Azamgarh.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have opposed the revision and
submitted that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application
under Section 173(4) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist.
5. A perusal of the record shows that the learned trial court has observed
that the revisionist had obtained the report from the concerned police
CRLR No. 4426 of 2025
2
station. It has been reported that both parties are pattidars and belong to
the same family lineage, and there is a dispute between them regarding
possession of ancestral property. The incident occurred on 22.02.2025.
Harikesh, the complainant in the case, filed an application on the basis of
which a case was registered vide Case Crime No. 49 of 2025 at the
concerned police station. On the application of Ashwini, the brother of the
complainant, another case, vide Case Crime No. 50 of 2025, was also
registered at the same police station.
6. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the revisionist that an FIR has
already been registered regarding the said incident against the accused
persons vide Case Crime No. 49 of 2025. An FIR in respect of the same
incident has also been lodged by the brother of the complainant vide Case
Crime No. 50 of 2025. If any further accused are found to be involved on
the basis of evidence submitted before the Investigating Officer, the
revisionist may move an appropriate application before the learned trial
court under the relevant provisions of law.
7. In view of the above, there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in
the impugned order. The criminal revision lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
March 16, 2026
M. Tarik
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…