Dismissed¶29

Dheeraj and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2026CRLR/1078/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; CRLR No. 1078 of 2026; Dheeraj v. State of U.P.; criminal revision dismissed; summoning order under Sections 302/120B IPC upheld; protest petition accepted; further investigation final report rejected; CJM Mau; Case Crime No. 600 of 2017; aluminium phosphide poisoning; FSL report; delay in FIR; no interference in revision.

What did the court decide?

There is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau. ¶28

Dheeraj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1078 of 2026

¶2

Dheeraj And 3 Others

¶3

.....Revisionist(s)

¶4

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Shujauddin, Ziauddin Farooqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶5

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, in Case Crime No. 600 of 2017, under Sections 302 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station Muhammadabad, District Mau.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that initially opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged on 19.12.2017 against the revisionists. The statement of the first informant, namely Tetri Devi, was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she supported the contents of the F.I.R. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 11.04.2017. It was submitted that there was no external injury on the body of the deceased. The statements of witnesses, namely Mishri Chauhan, Suban Chauhan, Santosh Chauhan, Abubakar Khair, Nanahi Chauhan, Ashok Chauhan, Shivvachan, Rizwan, and others, were recorded, and affidavits were also filed. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) recorded the re-statement (Majid Bayan) of the first informant, Tetri Devi, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After investigation, a final report was submitted on 26.03.2018. The first informant filed a protest petition against the final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, on 05.06.2025.

¶9

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order dated 22.08.2025 accepting the protest petition. Thereafter, the impugned order dated

¶10

CRLR No. 1078 of 2026

¶11

¶12

22.12.2025 was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau. Hence, the present criminal revision.

¶13

Learned counsel for the revisionists further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged after an approximate delay of seven months. As per the F.I.R., the incident took place on 10.04.2017, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 19.12.2017 under Sections 302 and 120B I.P.C. On the complaint of Smt. Tetri Devi, wife of Vijay Chauhan (the deceased), the F.I.R. was lodged against the accused persons, namely Dhiraj, Chakauti, Kanhaiya, Ramrat, Tunmun, Mansingh, and Shanichari.

¶14

As per the contents of the F.I.R., all the accused persons are alleged to be mischievous in nature. The informant has only one daughter, aged about 19 years, and her priority was the marriage of her daughter. The accused persons allegedly used to take the husband of the informant to their house and provide him with meat and liquor in order to grab the informant's property. Thereafter, they allegedly controlled her husband and influenced his actions. The husband of the complainant opposed the allegedly fabricated will of his father. It is alleged that the accused persons manipulated matters at the Tehsil.

¶15

On the night of 10/11.04.2017, all the aforesaid accused persons allegedly conspired to grab the property and, in order to keep the matter secret, conspired to kill the husband of the informant by administering poison. He died in the morning at about 4:00 a.m. in the hospital. The post-mortem was conducted, and the immediate cause of death was suspected poisoning; the viscera were preserved for chemical analysis.

¶16

Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that, as per the doctor's statement, there was no external ante-mortem injury on the body of the deceased. The cause of death was suspected poisoning, and the viscera were preserved for chemical analysis. As per the chemical analysis, aluminium phosphide poison was found in parts of the viscera (1–5) and material (7), as per the FSL report. Reliance was placed on CD No. 18 and SCD-17, wherein it was noted that the cause of death of Vijay Chauhan was due to selfconsumption of a poisonous substance.

¶17

Learned counsel further submitted that, during the additional statement of the complainant (question and answer form), certain facts emerged, on the basis of which the final report was submitted. The complainant filed

¶18

CRLR No. 1078 of 2026

¶19

¶20

objections to the final report and consistently accused the accused persons. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed further investigation and disposed of the protest petition and the final report accordingly.

¶21

The learned trial court considered the further investigation report filed in the form of a final report, which was rejected, and the revisionists/accused persons, namely Dhiraj, Chakauti, Tunmun, and Shanichari, were summoned under Sections 302 and 120B I.P.C. The learned trial court held that the complainant had stated that her co-villager Subedar had given shelter, but the Investigating Officer had not recorded the statement of Subedar. The I.O. also did not record any specific statement of the daughter of the complainant, namely Sarita. The alleged witnesses, namely, Mishri Chauhan, Suban Chauhan, Santosh Chauhan, Abubakar Khair, Nanahi Chauhan, Ashok Chauhan, Shivvachan, and Rizwan had submitted affidavits. The I.O. relied upon those affidavits and submitted the final report. However, as per the post-mortem report, the deceased Vijay Chauhan died due to aluminium phosphide poisoning, which is supported by the FSL report.

¶22

The facts of the case indicate that the deceased and his two brothers, Tunmun and Dhiraj, were siblings. The father of the deceased had executed a will in the year 2001 bequeathing his movable and immovable property in favour of Chakauti, wife of Dhiraj, and Shanichari, wife of Tunmun. The deceased Vijay Chauhan consistently opposed the said will. A case was filed before the competent civil court by the wife of the deceased.

¶23

On the date of the incident, the accused persons allegedly called the deceased to their home, provided him with food and beverages, kept him there overnight, and took him to the hospital at about 4:00 a.m. without informing the complainant, which creates serious doubt. It is also evident that poison was found in the body of the deceased, as confirmed by the FSL report. There are allegations that the accused persons had grabbed the land of the deceased. The investigation appears to have been concluded primarily on the basis of affidavits of the alleged witnesses, all of whom gave similar statements. The death of the deceased was unnatural, and there are consistent allegations against the accused/revisionists.

¶24