Dismissed¶15

Harendra @ Harendra Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2026CRLR/1453/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Abdul Shahid, J.), CRLR No. 1453 of 2026, Harendra @ Harendra Kumar v. State of U.P., decided February 25, 2026: criminal revision against framing of charge under Ss. 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act (Warrant Summon Case No. 825 of 2021, Mathura); plea of separate residence since 2016 held to be a question of fact for trial court; revision dismissed. Keywords: framing of charge, criminal revision, 498A IPC, dowry prohibition, question of fact.

What did the court decide?

The revisionists' plea that they purchased land in 2016, have resided separately since then and have no role in the offence is a question of fact which can be decided only by the learned trial court at the appropriate stage, and not at this stage when charges are already framed. ¶11

Harendra @ Harendra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1453 of 2026

¶3

Harendra @ Harendra Kumar And Another

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Prasoon Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 87

¶7

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists against the impugned order dated 24.11.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge ( J.D.)/F.T.C.(Crime against Women)/Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Warrant Summon Case No. 825 of 2021 (State Vs. Keshav Dushad @ Manoj Kumar and others), whereby charges have been framed against the revisionists, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the charges are already framed on 24.11.2025 against the revisionist by the learned trial court under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that marriage took place in the year 2014. The revisionists have purchased land in the year 2016 and since then they are residing separately. They are having no role in the said offence.

¶11

This is a question of fact, which could be decided by the learned trial court at the appropriate stage. The charges are already framed. The question of fact could not be decided at this stage.

¶12

Learned AGA has submitted that the charges are already framed and there is neither illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order framing charge dated 24.11.2025.

¶13

CRLR No. 1453 of 2026

¶14

¶15

In view of all consideration of facts, reasons and circumstances of the case, this Court find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The revision is, thus liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed.

¶16

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶17

February 25, 2026

¶18

sfa/

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Harendra @ Harendra Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harendra @ Harendra Kumar and Another 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashok Puri Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rampal Sharma vs State of U.P. and 22 Others

Poonam Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jatindra Dhiman vs State of U.P. and Another

Shekhdidar Ali vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another