Mohd Irsad vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1574 of 2026

Mohd Irsad

.....Revisionist(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Ram Krishna Yadav, Shikha Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶5

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge (D.A.A.), Jalaun at Orai in Complain Case no. 145 of 2024 (Mohd. Irsad Vs. Santosh Vishwakarma & another), under section 74, 115,309(2), 351(2), 352 of B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 is wholly illegal, as the learned trial court did not consider the complete facts and circumstances of the case and wrongly rejected the complaint under Section 226 of the B.N.S.S.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and contended that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. He has further contended that the incident in dispute allegedly took place on 01.07.2024, whereas no medical examination had been conducted and no police report had been submitted by the police. It has been submitted that the revisionist got himself medically examined on 03.07.2024, and no medical examination of his wife was conducted. He further submitted that the revisionist sent a complaint on 12.07.2024 to the S.P., Jalaun. Thereafter, he filed a complaint before the court of law on 30.07.2024, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 145 of 2024. The entire medical examination report of the revisionist shows only a contusion.

¶10

On the other hand, the revisionist has also alleged that another incident took place on 04.07.2024 at about 2:00 p.m., and he filed a complaint before the concerned police station on 04.07.2024 itself. He further sent an application to the S.P., Jalaun on the same day. The revisionist thereafter filed a complaint on 20.07.2024, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 137 of 2024 before the competent court of law.

¶11

CRLR No. 1574 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

Upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the learned trial court has specifically observed that the revisionist did not disclose the incident dated 01.07.2024 in the other complaint filed on 04.07.2024, and the revisionist has not submitted any reasonable explanation for the same. The learned trial court has also specifically observed that Rizwan Mansoori @ Chhotey Tiger, who is the brother of Mohd. Irsad/revisionist, had been named in a complaint filed by Narendra Vishwakarma on 24.09.2022 at Police Station Konch regarding the incident dated 23.09.2022, which was registered as Case Crime No. 203 of 2022 under Sections 387, 452, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. A charge sheet has already been filed on 25.09.2023 against the accused Rizwan Mansoori @ Chhotey Tiger, and Sessions Trial No. 64 of 2023 relating to the said offence is pending.

¶14

The revisionist/complainant has not disclosed all these facts in both the complaints bearing Complaint Case No. 145 of 2024 and Complaint Case No. 137 of 2024. The learned trial court has further observed that in the application dated 04.07.2024, wherein the alleged incident is stated to have taken place at 2:00 p.m., the revisionist sent the typed criminal complaint on the very same day at 14:48 hours through registered post to the Police Station Konch, S.P. Jalaun, I.G. Kanpur, and D.G.P. Lucknow, which appears to be highly improbable.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is neither any illegality nor any irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the learned trial court has passed a justifiable order.

¶16

The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.

¶17

March 9, 2026 M. Tarik

¶18

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶19

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

Mohd Irsad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Irsad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Bareilly Development Authority Vs Rajendra Prasad

Aarti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shabana Parveen vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhimanyu @ Mannu vs State of U.P. and Another

Aarti vs State of U.P. and Another

Ratish Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others