Dismissed

Smt. Prema Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2025A482/7465/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed an under-section 482 application seeking quashment of a remand order. The court found that the applicant improved her story in the subsequent statement after filing the complaint but levied allegations under the IT Act and IPC Section 376D without evidence.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 was dismissed with cost made easy.

Smt. Prema Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7465 of 2025

Smt. Prema Devi

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashwini Kumar Ojha, Nirmala Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 11

¶9

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer as well as perused the record.

¶11

The instant application has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-

¶12

"For the facts reason and circumstances disclosed in the accompanying affidavit it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may Kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Additional Session Judge Pratapgarh Vth/ Special Judge Gangster Act Raebarelly in Criminal Revision no. 283 of 2023 Veer Prakash & another versus State of U.P. and another, Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebarelly arising out of Criminal Case no. 14014 of 2021; Prema Devi versus Veer Prakash and other under section 323/506/376D IPC and 66A IT Act Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebarelly as contained in Annexure no.1, to the accompanying affidavit.

¶13

It is further prayed that during the pendency of the petition the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Additional Session Judge Pratapgarh Vth/ Special Judge Gangster Act Raebarelly in Criminal Revision no. 283 of 2023 Veer Prakash & another versus State of U.P. and another, Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebarelly arising out of Criminal Case no. 14014 of 2021; Prema Devi versus Veer Prakash and other under section 323/506/376D IPC and 66A IT Act Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebarelly as contained in Annexure no.1, to the accompanying affidavit."

¶14

A482 No. 7465 of 2025

¶15

¶16

Vide order, under challenge, dated 27.06.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No. 283/2023 preferred by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, the Additional Sessions Judge, Vth/Special Judge Gangsters Act, Raebarelly (in short "Revisional Court") interfered in the order dated 24.07.2023 and remanded the matter back to the Magistrate with a direction to pass a fresh order after considering the entire facts and material available on record.

¶17

Vide order dated 24.07.2023, the Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.IInd, Raebarelly (in short "Magistrate") summoned the accused namely Veer Prakash (opposite party No. 2 herein), Amit, Sarvan, Deepak and Jay Shankar (opposite party No. 3 herein) to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 376D IPC & Section 66A IT Act.

¶18

For the purposes of causing interference in the order dated 24.07.2023 passed by Magistrate and remanding the matter back to the Magistrate, the Revisional Court took note of the allegations levelled in the complaint preferred by the applicant in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and also the statement(s) of the applicant and her witnesses recorded in terms of Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and also the facts related to evidence pertaining to Section 66A IT Act and also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammad-ul-Rahman vs. Khajiri Mohammad Tunda and others, (2016) 1 SCC (Crl.) 124 and Naim Ahamed vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89 , as per which, procedure/process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment, as to summon an accused is a serious matter, affecting one's dignity, self respect and image in the society.

¶19

It is to be noted that the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Revisional Court is simplicitor order of remand, as in the same, no finding has been recorded which would prejudice the case of the applicant before the Magistrate concerned.

¶20

For coming to the conclusion in the instant case, this Court considered the aforesaid and also the following facts:-

¶21

(i) The applicant preferred the complaint in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. only impleading therein opposite party No. 2/Veer Prakash by

¶22

A482 No. 7465 of 2025

¶23

¶24

name and four unknown persons.

¶25

(ii) The aforesaid complaint was filed on 05.08.2021, as appears from page 30 of the paper book, which is the part of the complaint, and date of occurrence/crime indicated in this complaint is 11.07.2021 at about 12.00 Noon.

¶26

(iii) The aforesaid complaint also indicates that on 16.06.2021, a complaint was lodged by the applicant against the opposite party No. 2, which relates to filthy language used by the opposite party No. 2 with the applicant on mobile, and this dispute between the applicant and opposite party No. 2 was settled on 27.06.2021 and a compromise was signed between them. However, the said compromise has not been placed on record.

¶27

(iv) Subsequent to above, the applicant while making her statement in terms of Section 200 Cr.P.C. indicated the name of other persons involved in crime. In this view of the matter, the applicant, to the view of this Court, improved the basic story indicated in the complaint preferred by her in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶28

(v) The applicant has levelled allegations so as to attract the offence under IT Act and also under Section 376D IPC without any evidence in this regard.

¶29

Upon due consideration of aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the present application. The instant application is therefore dismissed . Cost made easy.

¶30

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶31

September 8, 2025 Arun/-

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Prema Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Prema Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karan Bahadur Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neeraj @ Anuj Tiwari Thru. Father Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Atul Dixit Thur. His Elder Brother Amit Dixit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zilajeet Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Lahuri Prasad Kashyap and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Society Anjuman Islahul Muslimeen, Thru. Secy. Syed Mohammmad Athar Nabi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Lko. and 13 Others