MANVIR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6183 of 2025

Manvir Singh
                                                        .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 6 Others
                                                             .....Opposite
                                                                   Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)          :   Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)       :   G.A., Lalit Kumar Srivastava

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State
and the learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 7.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order
dated 12.2.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras,
by which the complaint filed by the revisionist being Complaint Case No.
21812 of 2021, under Section 323, 504, 506, 498A, 302, 120B IPC and
Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Hasayan, District Hathras has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that impugned order
passed without application of judicial mind and same is liable to be set
aside. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the
impugned order has been passed ignoring the material facts and evidences
on record and by misinterpretation of provisions of Section 203 Cr.P.C.
The learned trial court has not properly considered the statement recorded
under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the deceased-
Sapna Singh died due to beating of opposite parties in her matrimonial
home.

5. Learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the deceased
Sapna Singh had died due to natural death on account of her illness. She
was treated at AIIMS, New Delhi by the opposite parties. He further
submitted previously an FIR was lodged and charge sheet was submitted
                                                        CRLR No. 6183 of 2025
                               2


only against husband, but lateron, the matter was compromised. Learned
counsel has further submitted that this matter also compromised, hence no
postmortem took place and all the requirements were fulfilled whichever
was demanded by the complainant.

6. Perusal of the record reflects that the complaint has been filed by the
revisionist against all the family members of his deceased daughter. In the
original complaint, the opposite party no.2-Gaurav Singh is the husband,
opposite party no.3-Virendra Singh is the father-in-law, the opposite party
no.4-Smt. Sarswati Devi is the mother-in-law, the opposite party no.5-
Pinki @ Priyanka is the married 'nanad', opposite party no.6-Ashwani is
the husband of opposite party no.5(Nandoi). The complainant also
included opposite party no.6-Sudhakar Singh, who was the mediator in
arranging the said marriage which took place on 24.11.2012 in
accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that after marriage, an
FIR was earlier filed by means of application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. in the year 2014 under Sections 498A, 323, 315, 506 IPC against
all the aforesaid opposite parties. Whereas, learned counsel for opposite
party nos. 2 to 7 has submitted that in the said FIR, the charge sheet has
been filed only against husband-Gaurav Singh and no involvement of
other opposite parties was found in the said matter. He has further stated
that later on, the matter was compromised which is not denied by the
learned counsel for the revisionist.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the learned trial
court had completely ignored the material mentioned in the complaint and
stated that the deceased had been seriously hit on her head by pushing her
towards wall, hence she had suffered serious hemorrhage in her head and
internal injuries in brain, it was later on converted into brain hemorrhage.
They have not provided her correct treatment and ultimately to safeguard
themselves, the deceased was admitted at the final stages at All India
Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi in her last stage, where she has
died due to that serious injuries which was caused to her in the head and
due to brain hemorrhage she died.
                                                       CRLR No. 6183 of 2025
                               3


9. The complainant has specifically mentioned that the deceased recorded
her dying declaration prior to her death that has been recorded in the
mobile of Sita Devi wife of Sanjay Singh, who is daughter-in-law of the
complainant. All have been narrated infront of Rajesh Kumar.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 has submitted that
this matter has been compromised between the parties and whatever
requirement was made by the complainant that was fulfilled, hence there
was no postmortem took place of the deceased and the matter was finally
resolved. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 7 has submitted that
after death of deceased, the family members of the revisionist has
demanded that his daughter has died due to brain tumor, hence they
provide FD of Rs. 5 lacs in the name of two children and 10 Bigha land in
the name of her son. In that compliance, FD of Rs. 5 lacs was made in the
name of Avni daughter of Sapna (deceased) in which Rs. 2.5 lacs in the
name of Virendra Singh and Avni was made nominee and Rs. 2.5 lacs in
the name of brother of Sapna, where Avni was nominee. 10 Bigha land
was transferred in the name of Bharat son of Sapna on 29.11.2021.
Thereafter, no postmortem of the deceased was took place.

11. The said complaint was filed on 17.12.2021, whereas the deceased
died on 28.11.2021. The complainant has previously also implicated all
in-laws of her daughter in the previous FIR of case crime No. 180 of
2014, whereas no offence was found against all other named accused
except husband (Gaurav Singh), against whom, charge has been filed.
Thereafter, that matter was also entered into compromise. Thereafter, she
was residing in her matrimonial home. They had two children. There are
continuity of treatment and in between no complaint of any kind of mal-
treatment or demand of dowry or torture has ever been made by the
complainant. The deceased died in the Hospital. No postmortem was
conducted with due consent of both the parties. On demand of
complainant, Rs. 5 lacs FD and ten Bigha land was also transferred in the
name of two children of the deceased Avni and Bharat. Thereafter, this
further complaint has been filed. In the said complaint, the complainant
has impleaded all the members of the family including married 'nanad'
and 'nandoi' and mediator, who has performed marriage in the year 2012.
                                                                                           CRLR No. 6183 of 2025
                                                                   4


                                    12. In view of the facts, reasons and circumstances mentioned in the
                                    impugned order dated 12.2.2025 and complete genesis of the incident
                                    does not found any prima facie case against the opposite party nos. 2 to 7.
                                    There is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order. The
                                    revision is liable to be dismissed.

                                    13. The criminal revision is dismissed.



                                                                                            (Abdul Shahid,J.)
                                    March 10, 2026
                                    sfa/




Digitally signed by :-
SYED FAHEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad