Mohd. Rizwan and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2026CRLR/299/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against interim order partly allowing and partly dismissing discharge application under sections 420, 406, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act arising from a failed marriage. Notice issued; charge-framing proceedings kept in abeyance till next listing.

What did the court decide?

Admission notice to opposite party no.2; charge-framing stayed until 20.4.2026.

Mohd. Rizwan and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 299 of 2026

¶3

Mohd. Rizwan And 8 Others

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Kamlesh Singh, Manjusha Kapil, Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 27

¶8

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶9

Instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the learned ACJM, Court No.21, Sultanpur in CNR No. UPST040079112022, arising out of case crime no.664 of 2021, police station – Gosainganj, District - Sultanpur whereby discharge application filed by the revisionist has been partly allowed in respect of the charge under section 406 IPC but dismissed in respect of charge under section 420, 506 IPC as well as Section 3 / 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and the case is fixed for framing of the charges.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that in fact on 15.11.2021 ceremony of Mehdi was scheduled to be held at the house of the complainant and entire family of the revisionist had come to attend the ceremony. The complainant side was demanding two nikhanama whereas revisionist was not ready to adhere to this demand as there was no justification for two nikahnama.

¶11

They had stated that one Nikahnama will be executed at Delhi and the other at Sultanpur. Complainant side became furious when the revisionist declined to adhere to this demand and lodged an FIR with false and concocted allegations against them at police station concerned. FIR was lodged under section 3 / 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 506 IPC and charge under section 420 and 406 IPC were added during investigation.

¶12

She next submitted that there are elements of settlement and matter may be referred to the mediation centre for amicable settlement which is admitted fact that the marriage between Mohd Rizvan and Juhi Hashmi was not solemnized.

Admit.

CRLR No. 299 of 2026

Issue notice to respondent no.2 returnable at an early date.

¶17

Steps be taken within a week.

¶18

List on 20.4.2026 as fresh.

¶19

Proceedings of framing of charge shall remain in abeyance till the next date of listing if the charges are not framed as yet.

¶20

March 17, 2026 mks

¶21

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Rizwan and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Rizwan and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rambabu Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Manju Srivastava @ Manjulata Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sujeet @ Sujeet Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Saleem Qurashi @ Pappu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home )Lko.

Narendra Chaudhary vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ranjeet Kumar Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another