Dismissed¶16

Raju and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2026CRLR/1014/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision dismissed — order of Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Sessions Case No. 1610 of 2025 — cross-FIRs Case Crime Nos. 281 and 282 of 2024 — Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC — P.S. Khorabar, District Gorakhpur — aggressor to be decided at trial — Section 308 IPC offence a matter of evidence — nature of injuries, intention and mens rea for trial — no mini-trial or meticulous appreciation of evidence at interim stage — no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error — counterblast plea rejected at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Since there are two cross-FIRs regarding the same incident and charge sheets have been filed in both cases, the question as to who was the aggressor is to be decided at the stage of trial and cannot be determined at this stage. ¶15

Raju and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, in Sessions Case No. 1610 of 2025 is illegal, arbitrary or unjustifiable and calls for interference in criminal revision. +2 more

¶10

Court's answer

On the facts, circumstances, reasons and provisions of law, there is neither any illegality, perversity nor jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the Sessions Judge, and the criminal revision is therefore liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

¶15

Key takeaways

Whether the offence under Section 308 IPC is made out, and the nature of the injuries, intention and mens rea, are matters to be examined at the stage of trial after appreciation of evidence; at this stage neither a mini-trial nor meticulous appreciation of the evidence is justified.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Allahabad High Court, Abdul Shahid, J., decision dated February 11, 2026) dismissed. Challenge to order dated 19.12.2025 of the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, in Sessions Case No. 1610 of 2025 (State Vs. Raju and others), arising out of case crime no. 282 of 2024 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, P.S. Khorabar, District Gorakhpur. The incident of 02.06.2024 gave rise to cross-FIRs — Case Crime No. 282 of 2024 lodged by Opposite Party No. 2 and Case Crime No. 281 of 2024 lodged by the mother of revisionist Nos. 1 to 3, both under Sections 147, 323, 504, and 506 IPC — and charge sheets have been filed in both cases. Held: the question of who was the aggressor, the nature of the injuries, intention, mens rea, and whether the offence under Section 308 IPC is made out are all matters for trial upon appreciation of evidence, particularly in view of the cross-case; at the interlocutory stage neither a mini-trial nor meticulous appreciation of evidence is justified. Finding no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the revision.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1014 of 2026

Raju And 4 Others

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

¶6

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Karunesh Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶7

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶8

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

¶9

The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, in Case Sessions Case No. 1610 of 2025, State Vs. Raju and others, arising out of case crime no. 282 of 2024, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionists has contended that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, and unjustifiable. There are no details of the injuries, and the medical examination was conducted three days after the alleged incident. The FIR was lodged by Opposite Party No. 2 against the revisionists vide Case Crime No. 282 of 2024 under Sections 147, 323, 504, and 506 IPC, alleging therein that on 02.06.2024 at about 6:00 p.m., in relation to a dispute over possession of land, Raju, son of Kailash; Rajkumar, son of Kailash; Dilip, son of Kailash; Prince, son of Dilip; and Akash, son of Balkumar came and started abusing and assaulting them, as a result of which she, her mother Sumitra, her sister Renu, and Devta Shashikala, daughter of Vishwanath, sustained serious injuries and were threatened with death.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionists has further contended that the mother of revisionist Nos. 1 to 3 had also lodged an FIR against the father of opposite party No. 2 and others on 02.06.2024, which was registered as Case Crime No. 281 of 2024 under Sections 147, 323, 504, and 506 IPC.

¶12

CRLR No. 1014 of 2026

¶13

¶14

Therefore, the present proceedings have been initiated against the revisionists as a counterblast.

¶15

From the documents available on record, it is revealed that the incident is admitted, as is evident from the fact that there are two FIRs regarding the same incident, i.e., cross-FIRs vide Case Crime No. 281 of 2024 and Case Crime No. 282 of 2024, and charge sheets have been filed in both cases. The question as to who was the aggressor is to be decided at the stage of trial and cannot be determined at this stage. The learned trial court has passed a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order supported by law. Whether the offence under Section 308 IPC is made out or not is a matter to be decided on the basis of evidence, particularly in view of the cross-case. The nature of the injuries, the intention, and the mens rea are to be examined at the stage of trial after appreciation of evidence. At this stage, neither a mini-trial nor meticulous appreciation of the evidence is justified.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances, reasons, and provisions of law, there is neither any illegality, perversity, nor jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.

¶17

February 11, 2026 M. Tarik

¶18

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju and 4 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Sanjay Tiwari vs State of Up and Another

Harcharan Sharma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Janam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Balbir Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vinod Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others