Dismissed¶25

Umakant Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2026A482/2818/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. application dismissed by Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Brij Raj Singh, J.) on 17.04.2026. Summoning order dated 17.10.2025 in Complaint Case No.600 of 2024 (Sections 323, 325, 506 IPC) and revisional dismissal dated 13.03.2026 upheld; protest petition treated as complaint; counter-blast FIR allegation rejected; injury reports and doctors' statements under Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. held sufficient; no illegality or infirmity in courts below; cross-cases with Session Trial No.40 of 2019 (State v. Ajay Mishra); Sultanpur; dowry prohibition; no merits observation made.

What did the court decide?

The law is settled that while issuing summons, the court has to see the statements, the record as well as other attending circumstances available on record. ¶24

Umakant Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the Magistrate in Complaint Case No.600 of 2024 and the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Criminal Revision No.354 of 2025 are liable to be set aside under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

No illegality or infirmity was committed by the courts below; the application being devoid of merit was rejected.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The law is settled that while issuing summons, the court has to see the statements, the record as well as other attending circumstances available on record.

¶24

Key takeaways

The record revealed serious allegations against the applicant, supported by the medical reports and the statements of the injured; the trial court had prima facie found an offence made out, and the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. including those of the doctors had been recorded, so the summoning was justified.ratio¶24
The Court clarified that it had not made any observation on the merit of the case and the court below would not be influenced by any of its observations while deciding the case.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Brij Raj Singh, J. — Application U/S 482 No. 2818 of 2026, Umakant Mishra v. State of U.P. and another — decided April 17, 2026 — DISMISSED. The applicant, facing summons in Complaint Case No.600 of 2024 (Archana v. Umakant Mishra, Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC, P.S. Kudwar, Sultanpur), which arose from a protest petition against a final report in cross-FIR Case Crime No.419 of 2018, challenged the second summoning order dated 17.10.2025 and the order dated 13.03.2026 of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Criminal Revision No.354 of 2025, contending the case was a counter blast to his FIR (Case Crime No.366 of 2018) and the injuries were concocted. Held: while issuing summons the court has to see the statements, record and other attending circumstances; statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. including those of two doctors, the injury reports of three injured persons (Girjesh Mishra, Golu Mishra and Samrendra), and serious allegations against the applicant supported the summoning; there was no illegality or infirmity in the orders of the courts below. The Court clarified that no observation was made on the merits and the court below would not be influenced by its observations.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2818 of 2026

Umakant Mishra

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rudra Mani Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sukh Deo Singh

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶9

The present application has been filed seeking setting side the order dated 13,03.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sultanpur in Criminal Revision No.354 of 2025, and the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.21, Sultanpur in Compliant Case No.600 of 2024, Archana Vs. Umakant Mishra and others, under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kudwar, District Sultanpur.

¶10

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶11

It is the case of the applicant that applicant has lodged an FIR in Case Crime No.366 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 452 and 34 IPC at Police Station Kudwar, District Sultanpur against brothers and father of opposite party no.2 on 01.11.2018. On 06.11.2028, opposite party no.2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned, who vide order dated 05.12.2028 directed for registration of the FIR, pursuant to which an FIR in Case Crime No.419 of 2018, under Sections 504, 506, 427, 307, 323 and 498-A IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged against the applicant. The police investigated the aforesaid case and after recording the statement of opposite party no.2 and the witnesses, filed final report on finding that the aforesaid FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the applicant. Being aggrieved against the final report, opposite party no.2 filed a protest application on 25.09.2019, which was treated as complaint and the same was registered as Complaint No.600 of

¶12

A482 No. 2818 of 2026

¶13

¶14

2024 vide order dated 12.02.2021. After recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicant and other co-accused were summoned by the trial court vide order dated 20.04.2024. The applicant challenged the aforesaid order by filing Criminal Revision No.200 of 2024 and the same was allowed by the revisional court vide order dated 20.01.2025 and the matter was remanded to the Magistrate concerned for recording the statements of the witnesses and the doctors and for reconsideration. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, two doctors, namely, Dr. Amit Kumar Singh and Dr. Shailendra Singh were summoned and their statements were recorded on 21.05.2025 and 06.03.2025 respectively. However, the Magistrate concerned vide order dated 17.10.2025 again summoned the applicant and other co-accused. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order, applicant filed Criminal Revision No.354 of 2025 before the revisional court, which too was dismissed vide order dated 13.03.2026.

¶15

Sri Rudra Mani Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant submits that no offence is made out against the applicant and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the entire case has not been considered by the trial court and only on the basis of the statements and the injury reports of the injured, the applicant and other co-accused have been summoned though the injuries sustained by the injured are concocted and the same have been prepared by the injured themselves without any cogent evidence. It is submitted that opposite party no.2 as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the applicant against her brothers and father, moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which as treated as complaint and the Magistrate after recording the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoned the applicant and other coaccused without adverting to the entire facts and the evidence on record. The revisional court also erred in appreciating the evidence in a correct perspective and dismissed the revision filed by the applicant against the summoning order in a cursory manner. Therefore, both the orders are liable to be set aside.

¶16

Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA and Sri Sukh Deo Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 while rebutting the arguments advanced by the counsel for the applicant, have submitted that the trial court after considering the record, statements of the witnesses, doctors

¶17

A482 No. 2818 of 2026

¶18

¶19

and the injured, has issued summons against the applicant and other coaccused. The revisional court also considered the entire facts in toto and has rightly dismissed the revision field by the applicant against the summoning order, therefore, no interference is required by this Court.

¶20

After going through the record, it transpires that the real facts are otherwise as stated in the application. Marriage of applicant with opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 12.02.2016 and since the marriage, opposite party no.2 was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and his family members and demanded a Car. On 01.11.2018, father of opposite party no.2 came her house, where the applicant and his family members demanded for four wheeler and when opposite party no.2 tried Dial 100, the applicant fired on her, but it hit her father. When the second fire was made by the applicant, it hit the brother-in-law (Jeth) of opposite party no.2. After information when the family members of opposite party no.2 reached to the house of opposite party no.2, they were assaulted by the family members of the applicant with Lathi and Danda, due to which uncle and brother of opposite party no.2 received injuries. Thereafter, police came and sent the father and brother-in-law of opposite party no.2 and other injured to the hospital, where brother-in-law of opposite party no.2 died and father of opposite party no.2 referred to the King George Medical University, Lucknow. Opposite party no.2 went to the Police Station Kudwar, Sultanpur for lodging the FIR on the same day, but the same was not registered by the police. Thereafter, on 03.11.2018, opposite party no.2 approached the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur for lodging an FIR, but the same was not lodged. On 06.11.2018, opposite party no.2, having no other option, moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., on which an order was passed for registration of the FIR, pursuant to which FIR No.419 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 307, 323, 427, 504 and 506 IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged against the applicant and his family members on 05.12.2018. It is said that due to influence of the applicant and his family members, the investigating officer filed final report, against which opposite party no.2 filed protest petition, on which the trial court treated the said application as complaint and after recording the statements, issued summons against the applicant and other co-accused. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 filed Application U/s 482 Nos.466 of 2026 and 9756 of 2024 before this Court

¶21

A482 No. 2818 of 2026

¶22

¶23

for joint trial of cross-cases i.e. Session Trial No.40 of 2019, State Vs. Ajay Mishra, and Complaint Case No.600 of 2024, Archana Vs. Umakant Mishra and others, and this Court vide orders dated 25.10.2924 and 29.01.2026 allowed the said application and directed the court below to pass a fresh order, pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sultanpur passed an order on 13.03.2026 and decided the Application 180 Kha and treated both cases as cross-case.

¶24

After going through the record as well as injury report, it is amply clear that three persons, namely, Girjesh Mishra, Golu Mishra and Samrendra have received serious injuries and the statement of the witnesses have been recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., including the doctors. The trial court has prima facie found that the offence is made out against the applicant and other co-accused, therefore, they have been summoned. The law is settled that while issuing the summons, the court has to see the statements, record as well as other attending circumstances available on record. The record reveals that there are serious allegations against the applicant and the medical reports and the statements of the injured also supported it, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity committed by the courts below.

¶25

Application being devoid of merit, is rejected.

¶26

It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merit of the case and the court below will not be influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while deciding the case.

¶27

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶28

April 17, 2026/Rao/-

¶29

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sultanpur dismissing Criminal Revision No.354 of 2025 filed against the summoning order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.21, Sultanpur in Complaint Case No.600 of 2024; both orders sought to be set aside in this Section 482 application.¶9
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sultanpur (revisional order); Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.21, Sultanpur (summoning order) · 13.03.2026
Prior proceeding
Applicant lodged FIR in Case Crime No.366 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 452 and 34 IPC at Police Station Kudwar, District Sultanpur on 01.11.2018 against the brothers and father of opposite party no.2.¶11
Prior proceeding
On 06.11.2018 (printed as 06.11.2028), opposite party no.2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, who vide order dated 05.12.2028 (year as printed) directed registration of the FIR.¶11
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the direction, FIR in Case Crime No.419 of 2018 under Sections 504, 506, 427, 307, 323 and 498-A IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged against the applicant.¶11
Prior proceeding
Police investigated and filed a final report on the finding that the FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the applicant.¶11
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the final report, opposite party no.2 filed a protest application on 25.09.2019, which was treated as complaint and registered as Complaint No.600 of 2024 vide order dated 12.02.2021.¶11
Prior proceeding
After recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the trial court summoned the applicant and other co-accused vide order dated 20.04.2024.¶14
Prior proceeding
The applicant challenged the summoning order by filing Criminal Revision No.200 of 2024, which was allowed by the revisional court vide order dated 20.01.2025.¶14
Prior proceeding
The matter was remanded to the Magistrate for recording the statements of the witnesses and the doctors and for reconsideration.¶14
Prior proceeding
In pursuance of the remand, two doctors, Dr. Amit Kumar Singh and Dr. Shailendra Singh, were summoned and their statements were recorded on 21.05.2025 and 06.03.2025 respectively.¶14
Prior proceeding
The Magistrate again summoned the applicant and other co-accused vide order dated 17.10.2025 (impugned).¶14
Prior proceeding
The applicant filed Criminal Revision No.354 of 2025 before the revisional court, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.03.2026 (impugned).¶14
Prior proceeding
Opposite party no.2 filed Application U/s 482 Nos.466 of 2026 and 9756 of 2024 before this Court for joint trial of the cross-cases, i.e. Session Trial No.40 of 2019, State Vs. Ajay Mishra, and Complaint Case No.600 of 2024, Archana Vs. Umakant Mishra and others.¶23
Prior proceeding
This Court allowed the joint-trial application vide orders dated 25.10.2924 (year as printed) and 29.01.2026 and directed the court below to pass a fresh order.¶23
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to that direction, the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sultanpur passed an order on 13.03.2026 deciding Application 180 Kha and treated both cases as cross-case.¶23

Umakant Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umakant Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Poonam vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anil Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Yateendar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Tarun Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Jagdev Rathaur vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others