Allahabad High Court
SONU MALIKversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANOJ BAJAJ
Holding
The revision petition is dismissed as the delay cannot be condoned and the magistrate's refusal to order FIR registration under Section 173(4) CrPC is upheld.
Summary
Petitioner Sonu Malik alleged that six accused entered her house on 17 April 2024 and raped her while she was pregnant, and she applied under Section 173(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code for registration of an FIR. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application, relying on the landlord’s denial and the lack of supporting evidence such as a medical examination. The petitioner filed a revision petition 129 days later, seeking condonation of delay on the ground of attending to her ailing mother. The High Court examined the delay, the insufficiency of the complaint, and the magistrate’s reasoning, and concluded that the delay was not bonafide and the complaint did not disclose a cognizable offence. Consequently, the Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the revision petition, upholding the magistrate’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 129 days in filing a revision petition can be condoned.
- Whether the magistrate erred in refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Section 173(4) CrPC to order FIR registration.
- Whether the petitioner's complaint sufficiently disclosed a cognizable offence warranting an FIR.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173(4)
Subjects
- rape
- FIR registration
- Section 173(4) CrPC
- revision petition
- delay condonation
- criminal procedure
- magistrate jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1090 of 2025
Sonu Malik
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : In Person, Sonu Malik
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Lal Mani Singh, Dhirendra Kumar,
G.A., Ulajhan Singh Bind
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, whereby the application
under Section 173(4) BNSS filed by the petitioner for registration of the
FIR against opposite part nos.2 to 7, and investigation has been dismissed.
The petitioner appeared in person and prayed for condonation of delay of
129 days in filing the revision petition, on the ground that she remained
busy in attending her ailing mother, therefore, the revision petition could
not be filed in time. According to the petitioner, the delay caused in filing
the revision petition is bonafide and unintentional.
On merits, the petitioner has argued that her complaint against opposite
parties alleging rape in the house of the petitioner at mid night discloses
commission of a cognizable offence, but the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate refused to exercise jurisdiction under Section 173(4) BNSS
while dismissing her application vide impugned order dated 01.10.2024.
She further submits that the she was alone in her house as her husband
was away in relation to his business, when on 17th April, 2024 at around
mid-night, the opposite parties nos.2 to 7, namely, Uljhan Singh Bind,
Dhirendra Kumar, Lal Mani Singh Jugnu Singh, Deepak Kumar, Rahul
Kumar and Ankur Kumar entered her house and raped her turn by turn.
Petitioner submits that she was pregnant, when she was subjected to
crime, and despite her cries, nobody came to her rescue and the
application given to the police on 7th May, 2024 for registration of FIR
CRLRD No. 1090 of 2025
2
was not acted upon, therefore, the application was moved before the
Magistrate for registration of FIR and investigation. According to the
petitioner, the impugned order is bad in law and calls for interference by
this Court in exercises of revisional jurisdiction.
During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by the petitioner as well as
the opposite party no.2 that both the parties are advocates by profession.
At this stage, the petitioner has highlighted that she even worked in the
chamber of the opposite party no.2 Mr. Ulajhan Singh Bind and there also
he exploited her continuously for two years.
Upon hearing the petitioner and considering her submissions, this Court
finds that the complaint given by the petitioner in respect of the
occurrence dated 7th April, 2024 contains bald allegations that six
persons entered her house when the door was not bolted and they all
raped her, but in support of these allegations, no other particulars much
less acquaintance with the opposite parties is mentioned. Concededly,
there is no medical examination of the petitioner to support her
allegations of rape.
A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Magistrate has
carefully analyzed the application and submissions of the petitioner while
dismissing her application through impugned order dated 1st October,
2024 and the Magistrate also relied upon the version of the landlord of the
house, who denied any such occurrence.
Thus, considering the contents of the application filed by the petitioner
coupled with unexplained delay in availing the remedy of revision against
the impugned order dated 1.10.2024, this Court does not find any ground
to either condone the delay or interfere with the impugned order.
Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed.
(Manoj Bajaj,J.)
May 4, 2026
Raj
Digitally signed by :-
RAJ KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…