Allowed¶14

Waseem Ahmad @ Waseem v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2026CRLR/1483/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision allowed by Allahabad High Court (Abdul Shahid, J.) on 12.03.2026 in CRLR No. 1483 of 2026 (Waseem Ahmad @ Waseem vs. State of U.P. and Another). Discharge refused despite trial court finding of no prima facie evidence under Section 406 IPC stridhan complaint (Complaint Case No. 619 of 2025, P.S. Gulawathi, Bulandshahar); statements under Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C.; order set aside qua revisionist; trial court directed to pass reasoned, speaking order on discharge application; restitution of conjugal rights case mentioned.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision allowed; impugned order dated 19.01.2026 set aside insofar as it relates to revisionist Waseem, with direction to the trial court to re-appreciate the entire evidence and pass a reasoned, speaking and detailed order on his discharge application. ¶14

Waseem Ahmad @ Waseem vs State of Up and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order, under which the revisionist was not discharged although the trial court found no prima facie evidence against him on the same findings as his co-accused, was passed without application of judicial mind and is vitiated by illegality and perversity.

¶8

Court's answer

The trial court having specifically recorded that no prima facie evidence was available on the record to prove any charge against Waseem, Shakeel, Smt. Yasmeen and Javed, the non-discharge of Waseem thereafter is an apparent illegality and perversity.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the merits, the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 is set aside insofar as it relates to the revisionist Waseem.

¶13

Key takeaways

The learned trial court is directed to re-appreciate the entire evidence available on record and pass a reasoned, speaking and detailed order regarding the discharge application of Waseem.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (Allahabad High Court, Abdul Shahid, J.) against order dated 19.01.2026 of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1, Bulandshahar, in Complaint Case No. 619 of 2025 under Section 406 I.P.C. The trial court had recorded a specific finding, on the complainant's statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., that no prima facie evidence was available to prove any charge against accused persons Waseem, Shakeel, Smt. Yasmeen and Javed; nevertheless, the revisionist Waseem alone was not discharged. Held: this is an apparent illegality and perversity. Without entering the merits, the impugned order was set aside insofar as it relates to the revisionist, and the trial court was directed to re-appreciate the entire evidence and pass a reasoned, speaking and detailed order on the discharge application of Waseem. Revision allowed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1483 of 2026

¶3

Waseem Ahmad @ Waseem	.....Revisionist(s)
	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Jainendra Kumar Sharma, Rahul Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 87

¶5

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1, Bulandshahar, in Complaint Case No. 619 of 2025 (Yasmeen @ Joya vs. Waseem Ahmad and Others) under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Gulawathi, District Bulandshahar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he has already filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights against opposite party no. 2 and he desires that the opposite party should reside with him. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that no role has been assigned to the revisionist/husband in the impugned order. It is also submitted that all the other persons have been discharged by the learned trial court on the very same findings. However, on the same findings, the revisionist has not been discharged. Hence, it appears that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court regarding the revisionist is without application of judicial mind.

¶9

The learned trial court has held that, upon perusal of the record, it appears that the complainant has not disclosed in her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as to who had taken her stridhan, nor has she disclosed the same in her statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. None of the witnesses have disclosed what articles or how much amount had been received by the opposite party. The complainant has stated in a routine manner in her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. that her goods be returned, which has been further reiterated by the other witnesses.

¶10

CRLR No. 1483 of 2026

¶11

¶12

It is specifically observed by the learned trial court that the complainant has not produced any evidence which may prima facie prove any charge against the opposite parties Waseem, Shakeel, Smt. Yasmeen and Javed, and the court has specifically given the finding that no prima facie evidence is available on the record which may prove any charge against the accused persons Waseem, Shakeel, Smt. Yasmeen and Javed. Even thereafter, Waseem has not been discharged. This appears to be an apparent illegality and perversity.

¶13

In view thereof, without further going into the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 19.01.2026, insofar as it relates to the revisionist Waseem, is set aside. The learned trial court is directed to reappreciate the entire evidence available on record and pass a reasoned, speaking, and detailed order regarding the discharge application of Waseem.

¶14

With these observations, the criminal revision is allowed accordingly.

¶15

March 12, 2026 K.K. Maurya

¶16

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Waseem Ahmad @ Waseem v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waseem Ahmad @ Waseem v. State of Up 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

Similar cases

Ravi Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shambhu Paswan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raman and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shambhu Paswan and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Seema Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Kapil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another