Disposed¶19

Dhirendra Pandey and Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Anr.

Allahabad HC30 Oct 2025A482/9138/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Brij Raj Singh, J., decided 30.10.2025) concerning summoning under Ss. 452/506 IPC in Complaint No-358/2020 (Leelawati v. Dhirendra Pandey, Gonda); rejection of discharge application affirmed where statements under Ss. 200/202 Cr.P.C. disclosed an offence; contradictions in complainant/witness statements left for trial court; background civil/revenue demarcation dispute under S. 24 U.P. Revenue Code; counsel relied on Anukul Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 1153; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the Section 482 application stands disposed of, the Court holding the rejection of the discharge application justified and leaving assessment of contradictions/evidence to the trial court. ¶19

Dhirendra Pandey and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Anr. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 18.05.2022, the order rejecting the discharge application dated 21.01.2025, the revisional order dated 17.09.2025, and the entire proceedings of Complaint No-358/2020 should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. having been recorded, the complaint and the statements indicate that an offence is made out against the applicants.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Any contradiction between the statement of the complainant and the witnesses cannot be looked into by the High Court at this stage.

¶18

Key takeaways

The evidence has to be seen by the court below; after going through the record and leading evidence, the trial court can pass the appropriate order.ratio¶18
The order passed by the court below rejecting the discharge application is justified.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Brij Raj Singh, J. — Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 18.05.2022 in Complaint No-358/2020 (Smt. Leelawati Vs Dhirendra Pandey & others) under sections 452 and 506 IPC, the order dated 21.01.2025 rejecting the applicants' discharge application, and the order dated 17.09.2025 of the Additional Session Judge, Court No-1, Gonda in Crl. Revision No-133/2025, the dispute having arisen against the backdrop of revenue-court demarcation proceedings under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code. Held: statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. stand recorded and the complaint and statements indicate that an offence is made out; alleged contradictions between the complainant and the witnesses cannot be looked into by the High Court and must be assessed by the trial court on the evidence; the order rejecting the discharge application is justified. Application disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9138 of 2025

¶3

Dhirendra Pandey And Ors.

¶4

Versus .	....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Anr.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Angrej Nath Mishra	Shukla, Atul
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 16

¶6

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as Ms. Madhulika Sarkar, learned A.G.A. who appears on behalf of the State/Respondents.

¶8

This application has been filed with following main prayers:-

¶9

"The applicants named above most respectfully beg to submit that for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by additional Session Judge Court No-1 Gonda in Crl. Revision No-133/2025, Dhirendra Pandey & others Vs State of U.P. & another as well as order dated 21.01.2025 passed on discharge application by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda and summoning order dated 18.05.2022, passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No-5/Judicial Magistrate, Gonda in Complaint No-358/2020, Smt. Leelawati Vs Dhirendra Pandey & others whereby the applicants have been summoned under section-452, 506 I.P.C. as well as entire proceeding of Complaint No. 358/2020, Smt. Leelawati Vs

¶10

A482 No. 9138 of 2025

¶11

¶12

Dhirendra Pandey & others, pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda."

¶13

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the discharge application dated 11.7.2024 was filed by the applicants in which it has been stated that the applicants are innocent and they have not committed any offence. It has been submitted that the proceedings of revenue court under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code was initiated between the parties and the order for demarcation was passed on 27.12.2021 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned. He submits that the matter involves civil dispute and due to malafide intention, criminal proceedings have been launched by opposite party no.2. It has been submitted that after going through the record as well as complaint, it is clear that there is no offence made out against the applicants. Learned counsel has also pointed out that there are various contradictions in the statement of witnesses as well as complaint, therefore, the applicants may be discharged. The discharge application filed by the applicants was rejected by the court below on 21.1.2025 against which, a revision filed was also rejected vide order dated 17.9.2025.

¶14

On the other hand, learned AGA submits that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., so far as matter of discharge is concerned, the Court has to be very careful and the Court cannot do mini trial and once complaint has been filed and after recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C if an offence is made out, the Court cannot do mini trial. Certainly, the case can be tested and tried by the trial Court and discharge application cannot be allowed.

¶15

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the statement under Section 244 Cr.P.C. has been recorded, therefore, the trial is not required and on the face of record, the Court can look into the matter. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anukul Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, 2025 INSC 1153 .

¶16

A482 No. 9138 of 2025

¶17

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has been recorded and the complaint and the statement indicate that the offence is made out. The contradiction if any, between the statement of complainant as well as witnesses cannot be looked into by this Court. The evidence has to be seen by the court below and after going through the record and leading evidence, the trial court can pass the order. I find that the order passed by the court below rejecting the discharge application is justified.

¶19

This application stands disposed of .

¶20

October 30, 2025

¶21

Sachin

¶22

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dhirendra Pandey and Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirendra Pandey and Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Biru Chauhan Vs State of U.P Thru.Prin, Secy. Home Civil Secretariat Lko. and 4 Others

Lavkush Shukla and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Dhirendra Pandey and Ors. vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Anr.

Ankit Agrahari vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Ramji Umarvaishy vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another