Disposed¶21

Munna @ Arvind Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2026CRLA/1908/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Munna @ Arvind Kumar and 3 others v. State of U.P. - interim stay of impugned criminal-complaint proceedings; medico legal report dated 22.2.2024 does not corroborate prosecution story of assault alleged on 21.2.2024 at 6:30 PM; date of incident missing from statements under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C.; A.G.A. did not dispute non-corroboration; backdrop of Gao Sabha land encroachment, Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code eviction order and civil suit without stay; case listed March 2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief granted: until further order, impugned proceedings shall remain stayed; case listed in March, 2026. ¶21

Munna @ Arvind Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1908 of 2025

¶3

Munna @ Arvind Kumar And 3 Others

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Gyanoday Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Shiv Shankar Singh

¶9

Court No. - 14

¶10

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant informs that text message was sent to the learned counsel for the complainant with the information of urgency mentioned before this Court and repeated calls were made to him but deliberately he did not pick the calls.

¶13

As counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the complainant is available on record, therefore, prayer for interim relief is being considered with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that complainant and her husband encroached a Gao Sabha land, for which, complaint was made before the S.D.M. concerned, thereafter, the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code has been initiated and eviction order was passed. He further submits that on feeling aggrieved the private respondent raised objection in cutting certain trees but no such incident was taken place as alleged in the complaint. He also submits that husband of the private respondent filed a suit before the competent court for restraining the appellants to interfere on the possession of property of her husband but no stay order was passed, then on the basis of concocted facts, complaint in

¶15

CRLA No. 1908 of 2025

¶16

¶17

question was filed with the allegation that 4 persons assaulted her with kick, punches, lathi and danda on 21.2.2024 at 6:30 PM but on the same day, she has not taken any medical aid, thereafter, strategically, she obtained a medico legal report dated 22.2.2024, which does not corroborate the prosecution story. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant is that in the statement recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., date of incident has not been given but learned court below has failed to consider all these facts, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the appellant but he does not dispute the fact that medico legal report does not corroborate with the narration of the complainant and the date of incident has also not been explained in the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

¶19

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application, statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that medico legal report does not corroborate with the prosecution story, therefore, matter requires consideration.

¶20

List this case in the month of March, 2026.

¶21

Until further order, impugned proceedings shall remain stayed.

¶22

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶23

January 5, 2026

¶24

GauraV/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Criminal proceedings arising from the complaint filed against the appellants (the impugned proceedings); interim-stayed by this Court until further order. The precise impugned order (e.g., summoning order) is not identified in the text.¶21
learned court below
Prior proceeding
Complaint made before the S.D.M. concerned that the complainant and her husband encroached upon Gao Sabha land.¶14
Prior proceeding
Following the S.D.M. complaint, proceedings were initiated under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code and an eviction order was passed.¶14
Prior proceeding
The private respondent raised an objection to the cutting of certain trees; counsel for the appellants submitted that no such incident occurred as alleged in the complaint.¶14
Prior proceeding
Husband of the private respondent filed a suit before the competent court seeking to restrain the appellants from interfering with his possession of the property; no stay order was passed.¶14
Prior proceeding
The complaint in question was filed on concocted facts (per appellant's counsel), alleging that four persons assaulted the complainant with kick, punches, lathi and danda on 21.2.2024 at 6:30 PM; no medical aid was taken the same day.¶17
Prior proceeding
A medico legal report dated 22.2.2024 was obtained thereafter (described by appellant's counsel as strategic); it does not corroborate the prosecution story.¶17
Prior proceeding
In the complainant's statement recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., the date of incident was not given; per appellant's counsel, the learned court below failed to consider these facts, necessitating this Court's indulgence.¶17
Prior proceeding
Notice of urgency: text message sent to learned counsel for the complainant with information of urgency mentioned before this Court; repeated calls went unanswered.¶12
Prior proceeding
Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the complainant is available on record; on that basis the prayer for interim relief was considered with the assistance of appellant's counsel and the learned A.G.A.¶13

Munna @ Arvind Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna @ Arvind Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Subrati Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Abhishek Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ms. Sunita Devi Widow and Ors. Vs Union of India through General Manager North Central Railway

Ram Tirath vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Kapil Awasthi @ Chhotu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Shiv Baran Alias Nanhu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others